Disposed

V.Ramani, v. The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit

Madras HC12 Nov 2018WP/29441/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, legal representatives of a deceased sanitary worker, approached the second respondent for Death Cum Retirement Gratuity. The first respondent was directed to consider their representation and pass orders within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order to the first respondent to consider the representation dated 04.12.2017 and pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

V.Ramani, Vs The Assistant Director of Local… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.29441 of 2018

¶5

1.V.Ramani 2.V.Prabhakaran 3.R.Priya ....Petitioners Vs 1.The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit Office of the Combined Judicial Department 4^th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 2.The Commissioner Mettupalayam Municipality, Mettupalayam ....Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 04.12.2017.

¶6

For Petitioners: M/s.S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.T.M.Pappiah – for R2 O R D E R The petitioners 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased Lakshmi. She was serving as sanitary worker in the office of the second respondent Mettupalayam Municipality. After the death of the petitioners' mother, the petitioners approached the second respondent for the disbursement of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as D.C.R.G) and other pensionary benefits. As there was no response, they have given a written representation to the first respondent on 04.12.2017. Thereafter, certain particulars as demanded by the second respondent have also been furnished by the petitioners. However, till date the D.C.R.G and other pensionary benefits of the deceased Lakshmi has not yet been disbursed to the legal representatives / the petitioners, which has made the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

¶7

By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.122 Finance (Pension) Department dated 20.02.1995, the D.C.R.G, if not paid in time, has to be disbursed with interest. Despite this provision, the second respondent has not taken any action to disburse the pensionary

¶8

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

¶9

benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased Lakshmi. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 04.12.2017 within a time frame fixed by this court.

¶10

Mr.R.S.Selvam, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶11

Considering the limited scope of the prayer, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 04.12.2017 and to pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶12

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kst To 1.The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit Office of the Combined Judicial Department 4^th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 2.The Commissioner Mettupalayam Municipality, Mettupalayam +1cc to Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, Advocate, S.R.No.76937 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.77446 W.P.No.29441 of 2018 SSV(CO) rrs 19/12/2018

¶13

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

V.Ramani, v. The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramani, v. The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit

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

M.Ravikumar Vs The Secretary to Government

G.K.Thennavan Vs The Managing Director

D. Murugesan Vs The Managing Director

R.Arul, S/o.Ramasamy Vs Additional Director General of

S.Arumugam, Vs The Chairman and Managing

S.Kumaravel Vs The Secretary