Disposed

G.Mathiarasan, v. The Home Secretary (Pol-Vii)

Madras HC17 Feb 2015WP/419/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a police Inspector deputed to CBCID, filed a writ seeking mandamus to direct the Home Secretary to consider a representation for payment of a reward announced by the Government. The court directed the authority to dispose of the representation on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it on merits within three months from receipt of this order.

G.Mathiarasan, Vs The Home Secretary (Pol-Vii) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.419 of 2015

¶6

G.Mathiarasan [ Petitioner ] Vs 1 The Home Secretary (Pol-VII) Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2 The Director General of Police Mylapore Chenna 600 004 3 The Director General of Police CBCID Ekkatuthangal Chennai 600 032. [ Respondents ] Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2013 and thereby direct the respondent to pay the price amount of Rs.1 lakh as per the G.O.Ms.No.848 Home (POL VII) Department dated 15.10.2013

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, AGP

¶8

The petitioner is presently working as Inspector of Police. He was deputed along with others to CBCID Crime Department at Vellore for the purpose of investigation of the case in Crime No.599 of 2013. The team worked with other officers at Vellore, Chennai, Trichy, Mangalore, Mulbaga etc. The team conducted investigation and arrested the accused. The Government of Tamil Nadu announced reward of Rs.1

¶9

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

¶10

lakh to each of the police officers concerned.

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though amount was paid to other officers, he was not given the amount sanctioned by the Chief Minister. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 30.11.2013 requesting the 1st respondent to sanction him the award. Since there was no follow up action taken by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶12

The 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.11.2013, on merits and as per law and in the light of the order in G.O.Ms.No.848, Home (POL VII) Department, dated 15.10.2013. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
1 The Home Secretary (Pol-VII) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2 The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chenna 600 004.

¶14

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

¶15

3 The Director General of Police, CBCID, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai 600 032.

¶16

1 CC to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate SR.No. 8498

¶17

1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 8778

¶18

W.P.No.419 of 2015

¶19

SV (CO) PSI (23.02.2015)

¶20

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

G.Mathiarasan, v. The Home Secretary (Pol-Vii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mathiarasan, v. The Home Secretary (Pol-Vii)

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

V.Kumarasingh Vs the Chariman and Managing

K.R.Shanmugam Vs Thirumagal

S.Thulasimani, Vs the District Collector

N.Murugesan, Vs the Managing Director

A.Sheela Suganthi Metilda, Vs Tamil Nadu Dr.Mgr Medical

K.Narayanan Vs The Secretary to Government