Partly allowed

R.Subramaniam v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC1 Mar 2017WP(MD)/1594/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an employee seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The Court directed the first respondent to finalize pending disciplinary proceedings and settle pensionary benefits within eight weeks without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to finalize disciplinary proceedings and settle pensionary benefits within eight weeks.

R.Subramaniam Vs the Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P(MD)No.1594 of 2014

¶3

R.Subramaniam ..Petitioner

¶4

¶5

1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality Kanyakumari. ..Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner in Roc.No.5310/2004/OP3 dated 18.07.2008 and settle his pensionary benefits expeditiously.

¶7

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Godwin

¶8

For Respondents :Mr.M.Murugan, G.A. For R1 Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian for R2

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner in Roc.No.5310/2004/OP3 dated 18.07.2008 and settle his pensionary benefits expeditiously.

¶11

2.Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned standing counsel takes notice for the second respondent. With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶12

3.Taking note of the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition to finalize the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner in Roc.No.5310/2004/OP3 dated 18.07.2008, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to finalise the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disciplinary proceedings and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

¶14

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

¶21

Chennai – 600 005.

¶22

2.The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality Kanyakumari.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.C.Godwin,Advocate in SR.No. 6104

¶24

+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 6454

¶25

TS/07.02.2014/2P-5C

¶26

W.P(MD)No.1594 of 2014

¶27

30.01.2014

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

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

R.Subramaniam v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Subramaniam v. the Commissioner of

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

T.Marudhayi, Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Sivamurugan Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.J.Priya Vs Manjammal

Sarathkumar Vs the Secretary to Government

Senthil Kavitha Vs M/S. Indian Transport

Chokkalingam, Vs the Principal District Judge