Partly allowed

M.Indirani, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Sept 2015WP/29876/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Village Administrative Officer, filed a writ petition seeking gratuity and encashment of leave. The Respondent did not pass orders on her representation. The Court directed the Respondent to consider the representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2015 on merits within eight weeks.

M.Indirani, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

W.P.No.29876/2015

M.Indirani

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Revenue Divisional Officer Erode, Erode District. .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the gratuity, Special Provident Fund, Government Contribution, encashment of earned leave and encashment of unearned leave on private affairs to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.GP

¶12

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

2 The petitioner while working as Village Administrative Officer at Perundurai A Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District, is said to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.200/- from Tmt.P.Arukani for taking steps for the sanction of the Distress Relief Fund of Rs.10,000/- and in this connection, a case came to be registered by the jurisdictional Vigilance and Anti Corruption Detachment, for the commission of the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequent upon her arrest and incarceration beyond 48 hours, she was placed under deemed suspension on 20.04.2005. Since she has reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011, the respondent vide proceedings dated 29.04.2011, has extended the services of the petitioner under FR 56[1][c]. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though she was placed under suspension and not permitted to retire service, she is entitled to get his contribution made to Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave etc., and in this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.09.2015 to the respondent and since no orders have been passed, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

3 Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶16

4 Though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the same, directs the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 13.09.2015 on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner.

¶17

5 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
AP
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Erode, Erode District.
+1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, ADvocate, sr.52465
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, sr.52223
W.P.No.29876/2015
ts co
kra 05/10

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Indirani, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Indirani, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Jayababu Vs The Commissioner

Tmt.Rajeswari Vs The Principal Secretary to

R.Balaji Vs The Senior Regional Manager

C.Devarajulu Vs The District Collector

P.Ramakrishnan Vs The Registrar of Co-Operative

C.Ganesan Vs The Secretary to Government