Disposed

D. Murugesan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC9 Nov 2018WP/28386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired transport employee seeking direction to consider his representation for disbursing arrears of retirement benefits, directing the respondents to pass orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2018 and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

D. Murugesan Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.11.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.28386 of 2018

¶4

D.Murugesan .... Petitioner

¶5

¶6

1.The Managing Director TNSTC (CBE) Limited Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-641 043.

¶7

2.The General Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Limited, Erode Division Sennimalai Road, Erode-638 001. .... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2018.

¶9

For Petitioners : M/s.C.Masilamani For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2018, requesting the respondents to disburse the arrears of retirement benefits.

¶11

The petitioner has served under the respondent corporation and attained superannuation. As the terminal benefits were not settled even after his retirement, he, along with nine of the retired employees of the respondent corporation, filed W.P.Nos.39879 to 39888 of 2016, and this Court, by an order dated 15.11.2016, directed the respondents to disburse the retiral benefits to the petitioners therein, in twelve equal monthly instalments, in the light of the common judgment passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.383 to 457 of 2015.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the above order, some amount has been paid and yet there are remaining amounts due.

¶13

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

¶14

3.1. The petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents in this regard on 06.08.2018, which is not yet answered by the respondents.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents shall look into the grievances of the petitioner and would pass suitable orders within the time fixed by this Court.

¶16

Hence, Without going into the merits of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kst
To
1.The Managing Director, TNSTC (CBE) Limited
Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-641 043.

¶18

2.The General Manager,Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Limited, Erode Division, Sennimalai Road, Erode-638 001. +1cc to Mr.C.Masilamani, Advocate SR.NO.76702 sm:22.11.2018

¶19

W.P.No.28386 of 2018

¶20

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

D. Murugesan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Murugesan 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

B.Karuppaiah Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Assistant Elementary Vs The Presiding Officer

Mrs.K.Parimala Vs The Deputy commissioner of

M.Ravikumar Vs The Secretary to Government

G.K.Thennavan Vs The Managing Director

P.Somasundaram Vs The Managing Director