Disposed

K. Saroja, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC13 Jul 2015WP(MD)/20878/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondents to sanction arrears of salary and bonus for the petitioner, a Typist, for the period from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013 within three months, failing which a penalty interest would be levied.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to sanction the arrears of salary and bonus to the petitioner for the period from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013 within three months.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.07.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20878 of 2014

K.Saroja

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Courts IV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶11

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,

¶12

Chennai / Madurai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the arrears of salary and bonus for the period from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013 due to the petitioner with 12% interest till the actual date of disbursement.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Saroja (party in person) For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar, AGP

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the arrears of salary and bonus for the period from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013 due to the petitioner with 12% interest till the actual date of disbursement.

¶18

2.It is an admitted case of the petitioner that she was working as Typist in the office of the Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai on daily wages. The case of the petitioner is that she have been continuing in service without any break. However, from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013, the salary and bonus have not been paid to the petitioner and several proposals have been sent to the 1^st respondent for the said payment, for the duties discharged on consolidated pay. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ petition.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Today, Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that proposal has already been forwarded and he also produced a letter dated

¶20

¶21

21.04.2015 addressed by the Additional Secretary to Government stating that the payment of pending salary of the petitioner as Typist on contract basis is under consideration of the Government and hence, the petitioner is entitled to for the aforesaid amount.

¶22

4.In view of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the proposal and sanction the arrears of salary and bonus to the petitioner for the period from 13.01.2008 to 14.02.2013 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount due and payable to the petitioner shall carry 6% interest per annum from 14.02.2013 and the interest portion shall be recovered from the officials concerned.

¶23

5.The Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Courts IV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶28

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,

¶29

Chennai / Madurai.

¶30

+1cc Mr.M.MUTHULAKSHMI, Advocate Sr.No.38133

¶31

+1CC TO SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO.38213 NBJ

¶32

AA/04.08.2015/2p-5c/

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.20878 of 2014 13.07.2015

¶34

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

K. Saroja, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Saroja, 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

The Commissioner of Central Vs M/S.Spic Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

V. Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Sundarammal, Vs Mr.Paulraj

Jeyaraj, Vs the Commissioner

A.Ninaiva, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

D.Kumar Vs the District Collector