Allowed

A.Mariasengol Raj v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

Madras HC5 Dec 2018WP/21645/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning pension benefits, the petitioner sought a direction for his temporary service to be counted for pension calculation. The respondents admitted violation via counter-affidavit and undertook to send the revised proposal. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to send the revised proposal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 3 directed to send revised pension proposal to the 4th respondent within four weeks.

A.Mariasengol Raj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.21645 of 2017

¶6

A.Mariasengol Raj ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep., by its Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvarur Division,
Thiruvarur.
4. The Principal Accountant General
of Tamil Nadu,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to send revised pension
proposal for family pension, Commuted Value of pension and DCRG
to the fourth respondent to authorize the same as per Government
letter No.22825/FR-2/2016-2, dated 02.02.2017 within the time
frame.
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Jenitha
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Ramesh for
Government Advocate (F)
for R 1 to 3
R4- No Appearance.

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to send revised pension proposal for family pension, Commuted Value of Pension and DCRG to the fourth respondent to authorize the same as per Government Letter No.22825/FR-2/20162, dated 02.02.2017.

¶11

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of his temporary service is not counted along with regular service for pension with all consequential benefits. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for a Mandamus as stated supra.

¶12

The third respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that half of the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his regularization has been taken for pension and Accountant General has sanctioned the same in Letter date

¶13

d 18.11.2016. It is further stated that based on a clarification issued by the Government in letter No.22825/FR2/2016-2, dated 02.02.2017 regarding the finalization of pensionary benefits of officials who joined regular service after 13.03.2003 and 50% of service rendered on daily wages has been ordered to be counted for regular service for sanction of pension, the petitioner is also eligible for entitlement of the clarification issued by the Government letter and necessary action has been taken to send revised pension proposal to the Accountant General.

¶14

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the above stand taken by the third respondent, this writ petition may be disposed of by recording the above said undertaking.

¶15

5.Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and considering the very stand taken by the respondents, as stated supra, more particularly, that the revised pension proposal of the petitioner is to be sent to the Accountant General, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to send the revised pension proposal to the 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as admitted by them in the counter affidavit as stated supra. No costs.

¶16

Assistant Registrar

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

gsi/vsi

¶21

¶22

The Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvarur Division,
Thiruvarur.
4. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18.
W.P. No.21645 of 2017
vgi(co)
nr 07/01/2019

¶23

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

A.Mariasengol Raj v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mariasengol Raj v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

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

M.Kasthuri, Vs The Income Tax Officer

S.Chandrakala,W/o.Srinivasan Vs The Managing Director

B.Subhansherif Vs mr.lalit kumar chauhan

Nagaraj Vs The Managing Director

C.Panchavarnam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

S.Sundaramoorthy, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by