Dismissed

E.v.Narayanasamy v. the Government of India

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP/2510/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed three writ petitions filed sequentially by the same petitioner. The court held that the petitioner failed to disclose facts regarding the pendency of earlier petitions and sought relief in different forms without justification, culminating in the dismissal of all petitions.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is restrained from filing further petitions on the same cause without disclosing pendency of earlier ones.

E.v.Narayanasamy Vs the Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 08.12.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.2510 of 2012, 36272 and 35860 of 2016

¶6

E.V.Narayanasamy .... Petitioner in
all W.Ps.
Vs.
1.The Government of India,
Rep. By Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Freedom Fighter Division,
Lok nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi. ....R1 in W.P.2510/12
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. By the Additional Secretary,
Public (P.P.I.) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore. .... Respondents 2 and 3
in all W.Ps.
The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Freedom Fighter Division,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi. ...R1 in W.Ps.36272 and
35860/16

¶7

Prayer in W.P.2510/12:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to increase the Pension Dearness Allowance like the Central Government to the petitioner and also to increase the medical allowance to the petitioner from a sum of Rs.15/- to Rs.500/- per month along with Freedom Fighters Pension.

¶8

Prayer in W.P.35860/2016:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus

¶9

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

¶10

to direct the second respondent to increase the medical allowance of the petitioner from a sum of Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/per month along with Freedom Fighter Pension by considering the petitioner representation dated 29.08.2016.

¶11

Prayer in W.P.36272/2016:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to process his application and forward the same to the first respondent to grant him Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension under the Scheme.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samidurai
in W.P.2510/12
For Respondents: Mr.K.Raju for R1
in W.P.2510/12 CGSC
Mr.A.Kumar for R2 and R3
Special Government Pleader
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagajentran
in W.P.35860/16
For Respondents: Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan for R1
in W.P.35860/16 CGSC
Mr.Digvijaypandi for R2 and R3
Additional Government Pleader
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh
in W.P.36272/16
For Respondents: Mr.K.Raju for R1
in W.P.36272/16 CGSC
Mr.A.Kumar for R2 and R3
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER

¶13

The petitioner in all the above writ petitions is one and the same. Originally, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2510 of 2012, seeking for the relief stated therein. Pending this writ petition, he filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.35860 of 2016 and one more writ petition in W.P.No.36272 of 2016 for the very same relief.

¶14

2.Heard both sides.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner is literally filing one writ petition after another in different forms with different advocates suppressing the facts about the pending writ petitions. He has not at all disclosed the facts about pending writ petitions in his affidavit. Further, the petitioner sought for pension in his last writ petition and that is the only difference. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar

¶19

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Freedom Fighter Division,
Lok nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2.The Additional Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Public (P.P.I.) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4.The Secretary ,
Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Freedom Fighter Division,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.7265

¶20

W.P.Nos.2510/12 and 35860/16 and 36272/16

¶21

MG(CO) GN(12/01/2017)

¶22

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

E.v.Narayanasamy v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Narayanasamy v. the Government of India

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

Mahalakshmi Nursing Home Vs The District Appropriate

N.Kannan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Arulappan Vs The District Collector

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing Vs The Commissioner

K.Sakthivel Vs The District Collector

G.Gunasekaran Vs The District Collector