Disposed

G.Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC1 Jul 2015WP(MD)/10941/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding interest on Delayed Disbursement of Pension Rules Grant (DCRG) on merits and in accordance with law within two months, without going into the merits of the claim itself.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioners' representation dated 14.12.2014 to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within two months.

G.Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :01.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.10941 of 2015

¶7

G.Rajamani ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶11

3.The Commissioner,

¶12

Udhagamandalam Municipality, Udhagamandalam. ... Respondents

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent i.e The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Chennai to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2014 regarding sanction of interest for the belated payment of DCRG after 12 years as per Rule 45A of Tamil Nadu Pension rules within a specified time.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam

¶15

For respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham

¶16

Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules claims interest on DCRG, on account of the delay caused by the respondents herein.

¶19

Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Addl.Govt.Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶20

By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that it would be suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶22

¶23

The learned Addl.Govt.Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶24

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.12.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn.)

¶28

\True copy\

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to the Government,

¶32

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶33

2.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶34

3.The Commissioner,

¶35

Udhagamandalam Municipality,

¶36

Udhagamandalam.

¶37

+1cc to M/s.S.Visvalingam, Advocate Sr.No.35538

¶38

+1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.35462

¶39

akm/13.07.15 /2p-6c/

¶40

W.P(MD).No.10941 of 2015 01.07.2015

¶41

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

G.Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

B. Manjulavalli, Vs the Director of School

M.Selvam Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

G. Chinnasamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.R.Karthik Sankar, Vs the Commissioner

Jebarson, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Y. Brema, Vs the District Educational