Disposed

R. Mala, v. the Director of School

Madras HC29 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10159/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Head Master) to dispose of the petitioner's family pension representation within two months, after affording all parties a hearing, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within two months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected persons.

R. Mala, Vs the Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.06.2015

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD).No.10159 of 2015

¶6

R.Mala :Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1.The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 06. 2.The District Education Officer, Cheran Mahadevi Thirunelveli District. 3.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Thalapathy Samuthiram, Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District. 4.The Accountant General, Anna Salai, Chennai-8 : Respondents *(R4 impleaded vide order dated 26.06.2015)

¶8

Prayer : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to give the recommendation to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents for the entitle to get the family pension to the petitioner, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 17.02.2015.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents :Mr.V.Muruganandam, AGP (R1 to R3) For Respondent-4 :Mr.P.Gunasekaran

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the 3^rd respondent to give the recommendation to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents for the entitle to get the family pension to the petitioner, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 17.02.2015.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

¶14

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶15

submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without

¶17

expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the 3^rd respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.02.2015, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed in accordance with law based on the available records, after recording the absence of the Party/Parties. The persons, who are likely to be affected are also to be heard before any final decision is to be taken.

¶18

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

MPK

¶22

¶23

1.The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 06.

¶24

2.The District Education Officer, Cheran Mahadevi, Thirunelveli District.

¶25

3.The Head Master,

¶26

Government Higher Secondary School, Thalapathy Samuthiram,

¶27

Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

¶28

4.The Accountant General, Anna Salai, Chennai-8

¶29

+2cc to MR.A.Rajaram,Advocate in SR Nos.34744 & 34470 +1cc to Special Government Pleader in Sr NO.34370

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.10159 of 2015 26.06.2015 RG.24.07.2015 2P.8C.

¶31

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

R. Mala, v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Mala, v. the Director of School

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

Dr.a. Thandeeswaran, Vs the Director

Ganesan Vs the Senior Regional Manager

M.Mohandass Vs the Chief Engineer

Mallika Vs the District Collector

S.Amuthavalli Vs the Director of Panchayats

Managing Trustee Cum Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar