Disposed

M. Jeyaraj, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC27 Apr 2015WP(MD)/6834/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking incentive increments for an M.Phil degree. Noting a factual dispute, it directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation, afford an opportunity of being heard, and pass orders on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Directed respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27/4/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.6834 of 2015

M.Jeyaraj

... Petitioner

1.The Secretary to Government, School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education,

¶11

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶13

4.The Headmaster,

¶14

Government Higher Secondary School, North Chezhianalloor,

¶15

Tirunelveli District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and pay the incentive increments to the petitioner for possessing M.Phil degree with effect from 21.06.2008, with interest.

¶18

For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Rajakumar For Respondents ... Mr.V.Muruganandam AGP

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to sanction and pay the incentive increments to the petitioner for possession M.Phil degree with effect from 21.06.2008, with interest.

¶21

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Mr.V.Muruganandam, the learned Additional Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that factual aspects have to be considered by the Authorities and only then, it can be decided whether the petitioner is entitled to the incentive

¶23

¶24

increments from the date of possession, as stated by the petitioner and submitted that the authority may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶25

The prayer sought for by the petitioner, directing the

¶26

respondents to sanction and pay the incentive increments for possession M.Phil Degree, with effect from 21.06.2008, cannot be granted by this Court, as there is a factual dispute in this matter.

¶27

Taking note of the submission of both parties, without granting the prayer as such, I direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the Petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed on merits based on the available records after recording the absence of the party/Parties.

¶28

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

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶30

/True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

mpk. To

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶34

School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶35

2.The Director of School Education,

¶36

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶37

3.The Chief Educational Officer,

¶38

Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶39

4.The Headmaster,

¶40

Government Higher Secondary School, North Chezhianalloor, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.C.Raj Kumar,Advocate in Sr NO.23339

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rg.11.05.2015 2p.6c

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.6834 of 2015 27/4/2015

M. Jeyaraj, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jeyaraj, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Chockaiyan, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

A. Rohini, Vs the Chief Engineer

S.Unaice Grana Vs the Joint Director of

M. Mangalam Vs the Director of Elementary

A.Chandraseharapandian Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N. Srinivasan Vs Union of India