Disposed

S. Radhakrishnan v. the Chief Executive Officer

Madras HC2 Feb 2017WP/14374/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writs directing the respondents to pay interest on delayed terminal benefits and Pongal Bonus arrears for 1992-2007. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 02.03.2009 on merits and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2009 on merits and pass orders within twelve weeks; Writ Petition disposed of.

S. Radhakrishnan Vs the Chief Executive Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 14374 of 2011

S.Radhakrishnan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai -108.

¶10

The Assistant Director, Khadi & Village Industries Board, Vellore. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest for the delayed payment of Terminal benefits amount Rs.3,90,000/- which was paid only after lapse of 16 years from the date of the retirement of the petitioner and also further direct the respondents to pay Pongal Bonus to the petitioner from the year 1992 to 2007.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Jayaraman, SC for M/s.G.Elanchezhiyan

¶13

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to direct the respondents to pay interest for the delayed payment of Terminal benefits amount Rs.3,90,000/- which was paid only after lapse of 16 years from the date of the retirement of the petitioner and also further direct the respondents to pay Pongal Bonus to the petitioner from the year 1992 to 2007.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that so far no order has been passed by the respondents for the aforesaid application. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶17

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

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the prayer in the Writ Petition is only a limited scope, this Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2009, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass orders, as expeditiously as possible, within the period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority with the copy of this order along with his representation.

¶19

With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamilnadu Khadi & Village Industries Board,
Kuralagam, Chennai -108.
2. The Assistant Director,
Khadi & Village Industries Board,
Vellore.
+ 1 cc to Mr.G. Elanchezhiyan, Advocate SR.7039
W.P. No. 14374 of 2011
VGI(CO)
EU 24.2.17

¶21

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

S. Radhakrishnan v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Radhakrishnan v. the Chief Executive Officer

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

P.K.Uma Maheswari, Vs the Member

Jayalakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Renugadevi Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Manimaran Vs the Registrar

K.Varadha Rajan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

G.Renganathan, Vs the State of Puducherry