Disposed

V.Chandrasekaran, v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC5 Oct 2016WP/33011/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking disbursement of gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment for a suspended government employee. Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider the representation dated 17.06.2016 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

V.Chandrasekaran, Vs The Revenue Divisional — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.33011 of 2016

¶6

V.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to disburse the Gratuity, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Encashment of Un-earned Leave on private affairs together with 6th pay commission arrears to the petitioner.

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.N.Srinivasan, AGP

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to disburse the Gratuity, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Encashment of Un-earned Leave on private affairs together with 6th pay commission arrears to the petitioner.

¶12

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been averred by the petitioner as follows_ The petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer at Chozhamadevi Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District in the year 1984 ie., on 24.05.1984 and subsequently, he was transferred to various places and finally, when he was discharging his duties as VAO at Rakkiyapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, he was falsely implicated in the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Case on 20.03.2009 and on the same day, he was suspended from service by the respondent. The petitioner was issued with a charge-memo and he has also submitted a detailed explanation. In the criminal case, chargesheet has been filed and the same is now

¶13

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

¶14

pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. In the meantime, the petitioner was due to retire from service on 30.06.2009 on superannuation; but, on that day, the respondent passed an order, not allowing the petitioner to retire from service. No retirement benefits have been disbursed to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even if the criminal case is pending, the government employee is having every right to get the retirement benefits. As the respondent has not disbursed the retirement benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner has sent representation dated 17.06.2016 to the respondent requesting to disburse his retirement benefits. Since the petitioner's representation was not considered, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition before this Court for the relief as stated supra.

¶15

3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

4.Though the writ petition has been filed for a larger relief, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the representation dated 17.06.2016 sent by the petitioner, it would suffice.

¶17

5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation dated 17.06.2016 given by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶20

ssv

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam Advocate vide sr 58000 +1 cc to Government Pleader sr 57535

¶25

W.P.No.33011 of 2016
skv(co)
aa04/11/2016

¶26

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

V.Chandrasekaran, v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Chandrasekaran, v. The Revenue Divisional

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

B.Ruckumaniamma Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Nagammal, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Sriraman Vs The Chairman and the Managing

R.Annadurai, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Deiva, Vs The District Collector

V.Murugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu