Disposed

H.Mary Jessy Roch v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Sept 2017WP/9705/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired school inspector, filed a writ petition seeking re-fixation of her pay and pension benefits due to alleged anomalies. The High Court directed the Director of School Education to submit a proposal within four weeks for permanent resolution.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent directed to submit a proposal within four weeks; First respondent to consider the case on merits and pass final orders within twelve weeks.

H.Mary Jessy Roch Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12-09-2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No.9705 of 2016

¶6

H.Mary Jessy Roch .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Represented by The Principal Secretary to Government,

¶10

School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-fix the petitioner's pay in the cadre of District Educational Officer/Inspector of Matriculation Schools with effect from 23.8.2007 granting the petitioner one increment and consequently re-fix the petitioner's salary and pensionary benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.V.S.Manimekalai

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan, Special Government Pleader.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to re-fix the petitioner's pay in the cadre of District Educational Officer/Inspector of Matriculation Schools with effect from 23.8.2007 by granting the petitioner one increment and consequently re-fix the petitioner's salary and pensionary benefits.

¶18

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as P.G. Assistant on 28.12.1978 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Higher Secondary School Headmistress and subsequently,

¶19

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

¶20

to the post of Inspector of Matriculation Schools/District Educational Officer. The writ petitioner had retired from service on attaining of the age of superannuation on 31.7.2015. However, the scale of pay of the writ petitioner was not fixed in accordance with the Rules and the Government Orders in force.

¶21

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that there is a pay anomaly in respect of fixation orders on account of erroneous interpretation of Government Orders by the authorities. Thus, the last pay drawn as applicable to the petitioner was not properly taken note of in accordance with the Pay Rules in force.

¶22

Thus, the writ petitioner has submitted her representation dated 8.9.2015 to the respondents to redress the grievances in respect of her pay fixation. However, the second respondent has not submitted any proposal in this regard.

¶23

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to submit a proposal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in this regard to the first respondent, based on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 8.9.2015 and the first respondent on receipt of the same, shall consider the case of the writ petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the writ petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

Svn To

¶29

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶30

School Education Department, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009.

¶31

2.The Director of School Education,

¶32

College Road,Chennai-600 006.

¶33

1 cc to Government Pleader SR.67025

¶34

WP No.9705 of 2016

¶35

CS-V EU(09/10/2017 )

¶36

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

H.Mary Jessy Roch v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Mary Jessy Roch v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Mrs. a. Kalaivani Vs The Registrar

R.Sundramurthy Vs The Principal Chief

R.Jeeva Vs The Block Development Officer

R.Jayasubramanian Vs Government of Tamilnadu

C.Annapoorni, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

V.Jesolight Selvy, Vs The State of Tamilnadu