Disposed

Smt.Dhanalakshmi, v. the Secretary

Madras HC27 Sept 2018WP/2414/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus directing respondents to treat their training period as qualifying service for terminal and pension benefits. The court directed the first respondent to consider submitted representations and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider representations submitted by the writ petitioners and pass an order on merits within 12 weeks.

Smt.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:27.09.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No. 2414 & 2415 of 2013

¶6

Smt.Dhanalakshmi ..Petitioner in Wp.No.2414 of 2013 Smt.Aseema ..Petitioner in Wp.No.2415 of 2013 vs 1.The Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicines, Director of Medical Services, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 3. Commissioner, Maternity & Child Health Department, State Rural Health Bureau, Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents in both petitions

¶8

Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the period of training from 01.05.1986 to 29.02.1988 as in service training period entitled for salary and to be counted for the service and other terminal benefits etc.

¶9

For Petitioner in both petitions : Ms.Vijaya For Respondents in both petitions : Mr.M.Karthikeyan

¶10

Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the period of training undergone by the petitioners from 01.05.1998 to 21.02.1988 was not considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of grant of terminal and pensionery benefits.

¶13

2.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the proposal had already been submitted by authorities to the Government and same is yet to be considered.

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the first respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioners on 23.09.2011 and on 30.03.2012 respectively and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copies of the representations and all other relevant documents along with the order passed in the writ petitions.

¶16

Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

¶17

pns/sk
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicines,
Director of Medical Services,
Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
3. Commissioner,
Maternity & Child Health Department,
State Rural Health Bureau,
Chennai – 600 006.

¶18

+2ccs to M/s.Vijaya & Ananth, Advocate S.R.No.66915 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.67414

¶19

KR/25/10/18 W.P.No.2414 & 2415 of 2013

¶20

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

Smt.Dhanalakshmi, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Dhanalakshmi, 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

Hill Country Hotels & Holiday Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Mrs.Lokanayagi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Chinnakrishnappa Vs The District Collector

G.Ramalingam Vs the Branch Manager

R.Vasudevan, Aged 58 Years Vs The Secretary to Government

Mr. v.N.Subramanian, Vs the Inspector General of