Disposed

U. Shanmugham v. the Commissioner of Technical

Madras HC7 Apr 2015WP(MD)/5115/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for appropriate interest due to delayed pension payment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

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

U. Shanmugham Vs the Commissioner of Technical — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.04.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.5115 of 2015

¶7

U.Shanmugham :Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Technical Education,

¶10

Guindy, Cennai-600 025.

¶11

2.The Accountant General,

¶12

Office of the Principal Accountant General, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 261, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.

¶13

3.The Principal,

¶14

Alagappa Chettiar College of Engineering, Karaikudi-630 004, Sivagangai District. : Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to pay appropriate interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of pension and other retail benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2015 within a reasonable time as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

For Petitioner :Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents :Mr.R.Anandha Raj Govt.Advocate for R1

¶17

Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R2

¶18

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to pay appropriate interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of pension and other retail benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2015 within a reasonable time.

¶19

2.Mr.R.Anandha Raj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.

¶20

3.By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

¶23

that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

5.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, the first respondent is

¶25

directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (Per Admn)

¶29

/True copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Cennai-600 025.

¶33

2.The Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 261, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.

¶34

3.The Principal, Alagappa Chettiar College of Engineering, Karaikudi-630 004, Sivagangai District. +1cc to MR.E.V.N.SIVA, ADVOCATE IN SR : 17448 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR : 17534 Srm SR : 17.04.2015 : 2p/6c W.P.(MD)No.5115 of 2015 07.04.2015

¶35

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

U. Shanmugham v. the Commissioner of Technical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. Shanmugham v. the Commissioner of Technical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaviyan School Vs the Direictor of Matriculation

M. Devaraj, Vs the Superintendent

K.SUBRAMANIYAN(M,43/15) Vs the Registrar

M. Gandhimathi Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Sivanandam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

I.Gayathri Vs the Tamilnadu