Disposed

G.Saroja v. the Director

Madras HC2 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11063/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider a representation for retirement benefits with interest. The Court, without going into merits, directed the respondents to consider the representation on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.06.2015 on merits and within four weeks, giving notice to interested parties if any.

G.Saroja Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

G.Saroja

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :02.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.11063 of 2015

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, 359, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶11

3.The Deputy Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation, dated 10.06.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondents to settle retirements benefits including leave salary, Gratuity, DCRG, commutation pension etc with interest at the rate of not less than 10% from the date when the same became due I.e., from 31.05.2009 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner, within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.P.Subbaraj For respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, GA takes notice

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 10.06.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondents to settle retirements benefits including leave salary, Gratuity, DCRG, commutation pension etc with interest at the rate of not less than 10% from the date when the same became due I.e., from 31.05.2009 till the date actual payment to the petitioner.

¶16

Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

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

¶18

disposal.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would 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.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶23

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

¶25

claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.06.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶27

of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar[Writs]

¶30

/True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, 359, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶34

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶35

3.The Deputy Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.P.Subburaj,Advocate SR.No.35586

¶37

W.P(MD).No.11063 of 2015 02.07.2015

¶38

MPK

¶39

PA/NR(RTI)23.07.2015/2P/5C

¶40

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

G.Saroja v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Saroja v. the Director

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

T.R.Karthik Sankar, Vs the Commissioner

Jebarson, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

G.Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

R. Muthukumaran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Shajahan Vs the District Collector

Xavier Sundaram Vs the District Registrar