Disposed

Rethinam, W/O.Late.Arunachalam v. the Managing Director

Madras HC6 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3888/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2017 regarding payment of arrears and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, disposing the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation on arrears and pass orders within eight weeks.

Rethinam, W/O.Late.Arunachalam Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.03.2017 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.3888 of 2017

¶5

Rethinam .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Managing Director,

¶8

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Head Office,

¶9

Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶10

2.The General Manager,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Regional Office, Marudhupandiar Street, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager,

¶13

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Branch Office, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 30.01.2017 to pay the arrears due to the petitioner and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman Standing counsel ***

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 30.01.2017 to pay the arrears due to the petitioner

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

¶22

Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the Writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.01.2017, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

5.Considering the limited scope of prayer in the Writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court pass the following directions:

¶25

The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.01.2017, regarding the payment of arrears to the petitioner 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.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Managing Director,

¶33

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

¶34

(Kumbakonam) Limited, Head Office, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶35

2.The General Manager,

¶36

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Regional Office, Marudhupandiar Street, Karaikudi,

¶37

Sivagangai District.

¶38

3.The Branch Manager,

¶39

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Branch Office, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.S.Radhakrishnan, Advocate Sr.No. 12514 +1cc to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate Sr.No. 12718

¶41

AE/RR/15.03.2017/2P/6C

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.3888 of 2017 06.03.2017

Rethinam, W/O.Late.Arunachalam v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rethinam, W/O.Late.Arunachalam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Abdul Aziz(Died) Vs Sophia Bibi(Died)

Nelson Rajasekaran, Vs Union Bank of India

T.Muthukumarasamy Vs J.Selvasundarraj

M.Muthukumar, Vs the Commissioner and

N.Narashimhan Vs the Secretary

K.Panchacharam Vs the Chief Engineer