Disposed

M.R.Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Jan 2016WP/972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to dispose of appeals filed against compulsory retirement and withholding of benefits. Court directed the first respondent to decide the appeals on merits within six weeks and disposed of the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to dispose of the pending appeals on merits within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

M.R.Palanisamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.972 and 973 of 2016

¶6

M.R.Palanisamy .. Petitioner in both WPs

¶7

Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai – 108. 3.The District Collector, Erode. .. Respondents in both WPs Prayer : Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeals dated 03.05.2014.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER

¶9

By consent, both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶10

2.The petitioner has filed these writ petitions, seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeals dated 03.05.2014 filed by him.

¶11

3.According to the petitioner, he was working as Executive officer from 15.10.1997 to 09.09.1999 in Pallapalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District. While so, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode prosecuted the petitioner along with one Bill Collector under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in

¶12

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

¶13

Spl.CC.No.39 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode, which ended in conviction. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this court by way of Crl.A.No.659/2006, which was allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner was set aside. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.28984/2011 for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent dated 03.04.2008 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to pay his retirement benefits with notional promotion. This court by order dated 26.11.2013, disposed of the said writ petition by converting the dismissal of service as compulsory retirement and directing the respondents to settle the pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits within a period of four weeks.

¶14

4.It is the further case of the petitioner that in the mean while, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of any charges, however, the second respondent Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10.03.2014 awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 31.08.2004 and ordered withholding of one third of the Death-cum-Retirement benefits, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 03.05.2014 before the first respondent. The petitioner also filed another appeal dated 03.05.2014 for early settlement of his retirement benefits. Since both the appeals are yet to be disposed, the petitioner is before this court.

¶15

5.Heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents.

¶16

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeals dated 03.05.2014 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

7.Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶18

-s/d-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

True Copy

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The Secretary to Government State of TamilNadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶25

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.

¶26

3.The District Collector, Erode.
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.2256
+2 ccs to Mr.S.Vijayakumar Advocate sr.1885,
1886
W.P.Nos.972 & 973 of 2016
gj(co)
aa10/02/2016

¶27

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

M.R.Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

V.S.Geetha Bai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mahendra College of Engineerin Vs The Government of India

M/s.Pon Pure Chemical India Vs The Commissioner of Customs

V.Anniyappan Vs The Transport Commissioner

Sundaram Hydraulics Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner

K.Kumar, Vs The State Transport