Dismissed

T.Muthukaruppan, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Feb 2017WP/13702/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking direction to grant pension, the Madras High Court, via a special government pleader's submission that an appeal was pending, directed the Secretary to Government to consider the appeal on merits and pass orders within four months before disposing of the writ.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider appellant's petition dated 10.4.2004 and pass orders on merits within four months.

T.Muthukaruppan, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 13.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.13702 of 2011

¶5

T.Muthukaruppan ...Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1.The Secretary to Government,
Rural Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 18. ..Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
to direct the respondents to grant pension and
consequential pensionary benefits and arrears thereon to
the petitioner for the services rendered by him from
02.01.1956 to 16.09.1970 with all attendant benefits in
the revised scale with interest as per rules.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prem Narayan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Diwakar Special Government Pleader For 4^th respondent : Mrs.Hemamurali Krishnan

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an appeal petition to the first respondent requesting to sanction pension through the District Collector, Villupuram/third respondent herein. The third respondent also submitted his report to the first respondent vide proceedings in

¶10

Na.Ka.No.gm3/5882/2004 dated 26.4.2004. In spite of the said report, no order has been passed by the first respondent with regard to granting pension to the petitioner.

¶11

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that if the said appeal petition is pending before the first respondent, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶12

In view of the limited scope of the prayer made and in view of the submissions made, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the appeal petition dated 10.4.2004 of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the said appeal petition along with a copy of this order to the first respondent, if the same has not been disposed of.

¶14

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

Sd/ Assistant Registrar

¶16

/True copy/

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

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

¶19

To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Rural Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 18.
+1cc to M/s.R.Prem Narayan, Advocate SR.No.9364
+1cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate SR.No.9776
W.P.No.13702 of 2011
SDR 28.02.2017

¶20

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

T.Muthukaruppan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Muthukaruppan, v. the Secretary to Government

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

N.Ganesan Vs the Director

S.Shivaraj, Vs the University of Madras

D.Subramanian Vs the Commissioner

Mrs.S.Girija Vs Union of India

Tamilnadu Private School Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Kannan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu