Disposed

S.Periyasamy v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Feb 2015WP(MD)/1832/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking retrospective completion of probation and pension benefits. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and decide on merits within 12 weeks rather than granting the writ immediately.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2015 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

S.Periyasamy Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1832 of 2015

¶7

S.Periyasamy ...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Administration Secretariat, Chepauk,

¶10

Chennai-600 005

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue revised order, as done in G.O.(1D) No.415 revenue (services 7(1) department dated 25.08.2014 in petitioner case also, declaring that the petitioner have completed his probation retrospectively with effect from 06.08.1997 and consequently pay all yearly increment benefits and revised pension benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sundareshan for M/s.Sun Associates For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶18

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to issue revised order as done in G.O.(1D) No.415 revenue (services 7(1) department dated 25.08.2014 and to declare that he has completed the probation retrospectively with effect from 06.08.1997.

¶19

In fact, it is seen that the petitioner seeks completion of his probation retrospectively and such request is being made after his retirement.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similarly situated matters, the first respondent has granted the order of retrospective probation.

¶21

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

¶22

Needless to say that it is for the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and this Court, at this stage, is not

¶23

¶24

expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by way of his representation dated 03.01.2015, I only direct the first respondent to consider the said representation dated 03.01.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶28

/True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government

¶32

Revenue Administration

¶33

Secretariat, Chepauk,

¶34

Chennai-600 005.

¶35

2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶36

3.The District Collector,

¶37

Tuticorin District,

¶38

Tuticorin.

¶39

+1CC to M/s.Sun Associates, Advocate in SR.6905

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.1832 of 2015

¶41

13.02.2015

¶42

rr. PBK 24/02/2015 ::2P-5C:

¶43

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

S.Periyasamy v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Periyasamy v. the Secretary to Government

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

S. Manonmani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G. Karikalan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S. Savariraj Vs the Secretary to Government

M. Balasubramanian, Vs the Managing Director

P.Ramar Vs the Tamilnadu State Transport

A. Senthilkumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu