Disposed

M.Roselet, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC13 Feb 2017WP(MD)/1034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent to sanction family pension for her deceased husband who had completed ten years of service. The court held that since a representation was pending, the respondent must consider it and pass appropriate orders within two months before firm disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider representation dated 27.05.2016 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

M.Roselet, Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1034 of 2017

M.Roselet

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai- 600 002.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to sanction and pay the family pension of the Petitioner's husband Late.V.Dhavithu(Staff No.218) for his Government Service rendered in the erst while State Express Transport Corporation.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.Christenson Jugunu For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Standing Counsel *********

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to sanction and pay the family pension of the Petitioner's husband Late.V.Dhavithu(Staff No.218) for his Government Service rendered in the erst-while State Express Transport Corporation.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶17

3.The case of the petitioner is that her husband V.Dhavithu employed as Conductor in the respondent/Corporation at Nagercoil and thereafter promoted as Ticket Checking Inspector and while in service, he died on 27.11.1986. The Petitioner's husband has completed ten years of service in the respondent Corporation and hence he was eligible to get pension from 1.5.1992. Since the Petitioner's husband died during service, the Petitioner is entitled to get the monthly pension and in this regard the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 27.5.2016 to the respondent herein and since the said representation did not evoke

¶18

¶19

any response, the petitioner is before this Court with the relief stated supra.

¶20

The counsel for the respondent would submit that it is agreeable for the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders thereon.

¶21

5.In view of the submission, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.05.2016 and to pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order., if there is no other legal impediment to do so.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (R) /True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

vsn

¶26

+1CC to Mr.D.Christenson Jugunu, Advocate Sr.No.8308 +1CC to Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate Sr.No.7742

¶27

GJM/MR/SAR-II/6.3.2017/2P-3C

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.1034 of 2017 13.02.2017

¶29

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

M.Roselet, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Roselet, v. the Managing Director

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

The Managing Director Vs Lakshmi

G. Subramani Reddy Vs M.A. Malick

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs E.Jayakumar

S.T. Rengarajan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

A.Rajeswari, Vs the Disrtict Collector

M/S Murugan and Co., Vs the Appellate Deputy