Disposed

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

Madras HC5 Dec 2018WP/21646/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for respondents to send a revised pension proposal regarding the inclusion of 50% temporary service. The court disposed of the petition after respondents admitted in a counter affidavit that they would send the proposal.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by directing respondents 1 to 3 to send the revised pension proposal to the 4th respondent within four weeks.

C.Panchavarnam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep… — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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.21646 of 2017

¶6

C.Panchavarnam ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

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, Ramanthapuram District, Ramanthapuram. 4. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai – 18. ...Respondents

¶9

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.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Jenitha For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Ramesh for RR 1 to 3 Government Advocate (F) R4-Name printed. No Appearance.

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

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-2/2016-2, dated 02.02.2017.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 dated 18.11.2016. It is further stated that based on a clarification issued by the Government in letter No.22825/FR-2/2016-2, 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

gsi/vsi

¶23

¶24

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,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18.
W.P. No.21646 of 2017
vgi(co)
nr 07/01/2019

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Panchavarnam, 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

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

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