Allowed

S.Muniappan, v. Group Commandant

Madras HC12 Jan 2015WP/8330/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking to quash an order denying benefits under the modified assured career progression scheme. Relying on a prior Division Bench order and a Delhi High Court precedent, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing respondents to confer benefits without delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners directed to be conferred benefits of the modified assured career progression scheme; no recovery of already paid amounts.

S.Muniappan, Vs Group Commandant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.01.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI,
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No. 8330 of 2010
S. Muniappan .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Group Commandant,
CISF, (Ministry of Home Affair),
'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Commandant,
C.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affair),
Unit Salem Steel Plant,
Salem 636 013. .. Respondents

¶5

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 2^nd respondent relating to his orders bearing No.E.36017/DOC.SSP/Payfix/2009/5341, dated 21.11.2009 and quash the said order dated 21.11.2009 and direct the respondents to give the benefits of modified assured career progression scheme and award costs.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ayyathurai
For Respondents : Mr. V.M.G. Ramakannan
C.G.S.C.
ORDER

¶7

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.,)

¶8

This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the second respondent dated 21.11.2009 and to direct the respondents to give the benefits of modified assured career progression scheme.

¶9

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

¶10

On examination, we find that the question of law and the facts involved in the instant petition are one and the same as in W.P.5752 of 2012 etc. batch. A Division Bench of this Court, in the light of the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in WP (C ) No. 7758 of 2011, disposed of the said writ petitions by order dated 16.6.2014 as under:-

¶11

“ In the light of the said decision rendered by the Delhi High Court, which has also reached finality in the absence of any challenge to the order in respect of the persons, who are similarly placed like that of the petitioners herein, and that the said order has also been implemented, this Court is of the view that all the writ petitions have to be ordered as prayed for.

¶12

In the result, the impugned orders passed in the respective writ petitions are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. The official respondents shall consider the claim of the respective petitioners as and when they attain eligibility period prescribed under the ACP Scheme and confer them the benefit without any delay and it is also made clear that any amount already paid, cannot be recovered in the light of the impugned orders. If any amount recovered is also to be reimbursed to the concerned persons within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

¶13

In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition also on the same terms. No costs.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar ra To

¶17

Group Commandant, CISF, (Ministry of Home Affair), 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai.

¶18

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

¶19

The Deputy Commandant,

¶20

F.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affair), Unit Salem Steel Plant, Salem 636 013.

¶21

1 cc to Mr. S. Ayyathurai ,Advocate, SR.No.1899/15

¶22

W.P.No.8330 of 2010

¶23

br(co) pmk.21.2.2015

¶24

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

S.Muniappan, v. Group Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muniappan, v. Group Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of Tamilnadu Vs P.Packianathan

Government of Tamilnadu Vs N.Valayapathi

The Secretary Vs R.Renganathan

Ppr.Hariharan Vs The Commissioner

Mr.D.Rajesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer