Disposed

S. Manonmani, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Feb 2015WP(MD)/1744/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed for special allowance. The court held that the claim was for the second respondent to decide and did not express a view on merits, directing consideration of representations within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider representations and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks.

S. Manonmani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2015 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.1744 and 1745 of 2015

¶5

1.S.Manonmani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1744 of 2015 2.Muthupandi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1745 of 2015

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat,

¶8

Chennai.

¶9

2.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai.

¶10

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

... Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶13

Common Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay special allowance of Rs.750 with effect from 01.06.2006 notionally and from 01.01.2011 with monetary benefit as per the G.O. Ms. No. 23 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011 with all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam for M/s.C.S. Associates

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶18

2.In both the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents to pay special allowance of Rs.750/with effect from 01.06.2006 notionally and from 01.01.2011 with monetary benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.23 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.01.2011 with all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

¶19

¶20

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to such relief or not is for the respondents more particularly, the second respondent to consider and decide and therefore, this Court at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioners.

¶21

4.It is seen that the petitioners have already made

¶22

representations to the second respondent on 19.11.2014 and 20.02.2014 seeking for the very same benefit.

¶23

5.Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the said representations and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶26

\True copy\

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶30

2.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai.

¶31

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. +2 CC TO M/S.C.S.ASSOCIATES SR.NO.7142 & 7143 +1 CC TO THE SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SR.NO.6798

¶32

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.1744 and 1745 of 2015 12.02.2015

¶33

SMS

¶34

NA/19/02/2015/P2/8C

¶35

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

S. Manonmani, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Manonmani, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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.B.S. Antow, Vs the Chairman

S. Moses Vs the Joint Director

P.Subramani Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

G. Karikalan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S. Savariraj Vs the Secretary to Government

Latin Catholic Fishermans Vs the Director of Collegiate