Disposed

V.Saraswathy v. the Secretary

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP(MD)/1271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing respondent government officials to regularise her deceased husband's post and issue pension. Court directed the District Collector to consider her representation and pass orders within four weeks without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

V.Saraswathy Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1271 of 2017

¶7

V.Saraswathy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat,

¶10

Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner,

¶12

Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Pangal Bungalow, Sytha Pettai, Chennai – 600 015.

¶13

3.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to approve and regularise the petitioner's husband's post and consequently direct the third respondent to give pension and other benefits to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation, dated 20.12.2016.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian Special Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to approve and regularise the petitioner's husband post and consequently direct the third respondent to give pension and other benefits to the petitioner based on her representation, dated 20.12.2016.

¶18

2.According to the petitioner, her husband was working as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cashier under the control of the third respondent Department and he was the only bread winner of the family. On 23.05.2009, the petitioner's husband, Venkat Raj, fell into the well and died.

¶19

¶20

After the demise of her husband, the petitioner's family are struggling for day-to-day expenses. In these circumstances, the petitioner gave a representation, dated 20.12.2016 to regularise the post of her husband and issue pension to her. However, the third respondent has not considered the same so far.

¶21

3.Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the third respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within a stipulated time.

¶22

4.Having regard to the submissions made on either side and also taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 20.12.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶28

2.The Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Pangal Bungalow, Sytha Pettai, Chennai – 600 015.

¶29

3.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.G.Gomathisankar, Advocate SR.No.4573 +1cc to special Government Pleader SR.No.4733

¶31

¶32

sm:RL:SAR 2:07/02/2017:2P/6C

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.1271 of 2017

¶35

27.01.2017

V.Saraswathy v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Saraswathy v. the Secretary

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

K.S.Palanisamy Vs Renganath

K. Thangam Vs Subburaj

T.G.Sankaranathan Vs K.B.Sanji Reddy

K.S. Sivanathan Vs Principal Chief Conservator of

C.Subash Pandaram Vs the Chirman

M.Sivakumar, S/O.a.Muniandi, Vs the District Collector