Disposed

M.Meera Maideen v. the Accountant General of

Madras HC3 Mar 2015WP(MD)/17317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the matter by directing the second respondent to raise a bill for the petitioner's delayed Deemed Regularisation Grant within two weeks, pending revalidation of authorization by the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to raise the bill for the petitioner's DCRG within two weeks based on the revalidation letter.

M.Meera Maideen Vs the Accountant General of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2015

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.17317 of 2014

M.Meera Maideen

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Accountant General, Chennai 600 018.

¶11

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai 625 020.

¶12

3.Dr.S.Seethalakshmi,

¶13

Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai 625 020.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to disburse forthwith the remaining DCRG to the tune of Rs.70828/-with appropriate interest from 20.7.2012 onwards to the petitioner and pass such further or other suitable order/orders.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For 1^st Respondent : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse forthwith the remaining DCRG to the tune of Rs.70,828/- with proper interest from 20.07.2012.

¶19

2.When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that even though earlier authorisation issued by the first respondent in respect of DCRG balance amount claimed by the petitioner has expired, the first respondent through proceedings dated 17.02.2015 has revalidated the earlier authorisation letter and sent the same to the second respondent and therefore, it is for the second respondent to raise the bills and consequently, it is for the petitioner to get the same from the treasury.

¶20

3.Mr.R.Anandaraj, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the second respondent will raise the bill based on the revalidation letter issued by the first respondent dated 17.02.2015 shortly.

¶21

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to raise the bill based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revalidation issued by the first respondent dated 17.02.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once such bill is raised, the petitioner is at liberty to receive the

¶22

¶23

same from the treasury without any further delay. Insofar as the interest for delayed payment is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to agitate the same in a separate proceedings. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Per Admn)

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai 625 020.

¶29

2.Dr.S.Seethalakshmi,

¶30

Joint Director of Collegiate Education,

¶31

Madurai Region, Madurai 625 020

¶32

3.The Accountant General of Tamilnadu, Office of the Accountant General,

¶33

Chennai-18.

¶34

+1CC to M/s.E.V.N.Siva, Advocate in SR.10348

¶35

+1CC to M/s.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate in SR.10358 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader in SR.10233

¶36

Writ Petition (MD) No.17317 of 2014

¶37

03.03.2015

¶38

sms

¶39

PBK 12/03/2015 ::2P-7C:

¶40

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

M.Meera Maideen v. the Accountant General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Meera Maideen v. the Accountant General of

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

G.S. Dhinakaran Vs the Registrar

M. Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Metropolitan Transport

S. Kansasamy, Vs the Tahsildar

M.Marimuthu Vs the Secretary

T. Murugananthan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Raja, S/O. Velukonar, Vs the Commissioner of Pudukottai