Petitioner sought mandamus for increment due on 2009, filed petition six years later. Court dismissed merit due to delay but directed respondent authority to consider representation and decide on delay within two months.
Application directed to consider representation on merits and pass orders including on delay within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2015
Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD).No.5100 of 2015
M.Gandhimathi
:Petitioner
vs.
Prayer : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent i.e. the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2015 regarding sanction of increment which fell due on 01.07.2009 as per FR 26(a) Appendix (ix) and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble High Court and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents :Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent i.e. the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2015 regarding sanction of increment which fell due on 01.07.2009 as per FR 26(a) Appendix (ix).
2.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons like the petitioner have been granted the benefit of increment by an order of this Court dated 03.08.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.22589 of 2010. Hence, he prayed that the same benefit may also be granted to the petitioner.
4.Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2009 and after a period of six years, she has come forward with this Writ Petition contending that she is entitled to the benefit of increment in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.22589 of 2010, dated 03.08.2011 and that the cause of action is a continuous one. But, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner for the reason that the writ petition has been filed belatedly. However, in view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2015, and pass appropriate orders and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the first respondent to consider the question of delay while considering the representation of the petitioner.
5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(T & P)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
TO
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
Melur, Madurai District, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.S.Visvalingam, Advocate Sr.No.17087
+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 17543
srm
AA/01.06.2015/2p - 6c/
W.P.(MD)No.5100 of 2015 07.04.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a retired petitioner is entitled to a fresh increment belatedly claimed based on another judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(MD)No.22589 of 2010, dated 03.08.2011Referred¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Gandhimathi
The Secretary to Government, School Education Department
The Director of School Education
The District Educational Officer
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
