Disposed

Dr.S.a.Subhan, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Madras HC22 Sept 2016WP/33252/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired doctor seeking mandamus to direct the Pension Pay Officer to consider his representation regarding pension revision under the IV Pay Commission scales. The court directed the petitioner to forward the representation to the respondent, who must deliberate and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to send the representation and the order to the 2nd respondent within two weeks; the 2nd respondent directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four we

Dr.S.a.Subhan, Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.33252 of 2016

¶6

Dr.S.A.Subhan

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Finance (PGC) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Pension Pay Officer-Chennai,
E.V.K.Sampath Buildings,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai-6. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 and pass necessary orders on the said representation in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Velumani For Respondents : Mr.C.Jagadish, Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 and pass necessary orders on the said representation in accordance with law.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he was a retired Government Doctor and at the time of his retirement on superannuation on 30.06.1991, he was holding the post of Reader in Dermatology Department at Thanjavur Medical College. While so, as per the judgment reported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

¶14

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

¶15

India in S.L.P.Nos.8848 to 8870 of 2002, by order dated 17.01.2013, the Supreme Court has directed that the State Government shall compute the average emoluments and calculate the pension for the person who retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 on the basis of the Tamil Nadu IV Pay Commission Scales of Pay with reference to the Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance applicable to the pre-revised scale of pay sanctioned from time to time as Dearness Pay.

¶16

The further case of the petitioner is that even as per G.O.Ms.No.363 Finance Department, dated 23.08.2013, the 1st respondent has passed an order implementing that the person who retired between 01.06.1988 to 31.12.1995 are entitled to subsequent pension revision and further issued G.O.Ms.No.174, (Finance and Pay Department) dated 01.06.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.235 (Finance and Pay Department) dated 01.06.2009 in this regard. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 13.08.2005, the Principal Accountant General (AAD), Tamil Nadu, Chennai has authorized the revision of the petitioner's pension from 01.07.1991 to 31.12.1995 and the arrears have also been paid to him only up to 31.12.1995.

¶17

It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the orders of the Supreme Court, further revision of pension has to be given by the respondents for the enhancement given in the year 1998 as well as in the year 2009. But, in spite of various requests made by the petitioner, his grievance was not considered. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 12.08.2016 to the respondents, but the same has not been considered so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and also considering the limited prayer made in the Writ Petition, this Curt directs the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 12.08.2016 along with a copy of this Order to the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.363, Finance Department, dated 23.08.2013, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶20

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

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Finance (PGC) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Pension Pay Officer-Chennai,
E.V.K.Sampath Buildings,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai-6.
+1 cc to M/s.T.Velumani, advocate,sr.53910
+1 cc to Government Pleader,sr.54218.
Rp(co)
krd 28/10
W.P.No.33252 of 2016

¶25

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

Dr.S.a.Subhan, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.a.Subhan, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath Post Graduate College Vs Prof.P.S.Naik

T.Samuel Selvaprabu, Vs The Director of Elementary

A.Dhinakarankoilmani, Vs The Director of Elementary

K.Krishnan, Vs The Managing Director

S.Boopathy, Vs The District Employment

G.Krishnamoorthy, Vs The Managing Director