Disposed

S.Sankarakumarasamy Pandian v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC27 Apr 2015WP/9815/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired Tahsildar seeking retirement benefits. After the petitioner retired in 2010 without facing disciplinary charges but without pension settlement, the court directed the Accountant General to pass orders authorizing pension and terminal benefits within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 6th respondent (Accountant General) to pass appropriate orders authorizing pension and other terminal benefits within two weeks.

S.Sankarakumarasamy Pandian Vs The Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.9815 of 2015

¶6

S.Sankarakumarasamy Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of
Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector
Salem, Salem District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Mettur, Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
5. The Tahsildar
Mettur, Mettur Taluk
Salem District
6. The Accountant General
Officer of the Accountant General
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and pay all retirement benefits viz., pension arrears, commuted value of pension, leave salary, GPF, etc., with interest to the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, AGP for R1 to
Mr.V.Vijayashankar for R6

¶9

ORDER

¶10

With the consent of both sides, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner rendered 30 years of service as Tahsildar. He retired on 31.03.2010. Though he was permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2010 and he is not facing enquiry or charge under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he was not settled pension. Hence he has approached this court.

¶13

When the matter came up fo admission on 06.04.2015, this court passed the following order:

¶14

“The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner after rendering about 30 years of service retired as Tahsildar on 31.03.2010. Though he was permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2010 and he is not facing enquiry or charge under Rules 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for the reasons best known to the respondents, pension is yet to be settled to the petitioner.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader seeks time to verify the facts of the case.

¶16

The learned Special Government Pleader is directed to get the proposal for sanction of all the terminal benefits forthwith, if the petitioner is permitted to retire and the terminal benefits are not settled for the past five years.

¶17

4.Post for orders on 13.04.2015.

¶18

Today the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the proposal in Roc.No.11191/2015/M2, dated 07.04.2015 forwarded by the District Collector to the 6^th respondent viz Accountant General.

¶19

Learned counsel for the 6^th respondent has submitted that necessary orders authorizing pension and other terminal will be passed within a period of two weeks. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 6^th respondent to pass appropriate orders authorizing pension and other terminal benefits. If the petitioner has any grievance such as payment of interest, etc., he can agitate the same in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

kpr

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of
Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The District Collector
Salem, Salem District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Mettur, Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
5. The Tahsildar
Mettur, Mettur Taluk
Salem District
6. The Accountant General
Officer of the Accountant General
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Elango, Advocate SR.23453
+ 1 cc to Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate SR.23565
+ 1 cc Government Pleader Sr.23235
PA(CO)
EU 21.05.2015
W.P.No.9815 of 2015

¶28

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

S.Sankarakumarasamy Pandian v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sankarakumarasamy Pandian v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Govindaraj Vs The Director

V.Santha Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr. Venkateswara Babu, Vs Medical Council of India

N.M.Ahmed Ali, Vs The Commissioner of Municipal

P.M.Annadurai Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Mathaiyan Vs Phanindhra Reddy IAS