Allowed

S.Mohan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Nov 2018WP/30929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging pay fixation under the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioner sought factual and legal aid for distinguishing benefits granted to other employees, the Court permitted a fresh representation citing subsequent orders. The writ petition will be allowed. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation citing G.O. Ms. No.306. The respondent

What did the court decide?

Written permission: The petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within one week. A direction to the 5th respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

S.Mohan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 23.11.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P. NO. 30929 OF 2018 AND

¶6

W.M.P. NOS. 36076 & 36079 OF 2018

¶7

S.Mohan ...Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By Secretary to Government
Finance (Pay Cell) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
School Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer
Thiruvarur District, thiruvarur.
5. The Headmaster
Government Boys Higher Secondary School
Valangiman, Thiruvarur District.
6. The District Treasury Officer
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
7. The Assistant Treasury Officer
Valangiman, Thiruvarur District.
8. The Headmaster
Government Higher Secondary School
Harithuvaramangalam
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 5^th respondent issued in Na. Ka. No.156/2017 dated 9.5.2018 and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to accept the pay fixation done by the 5^th respondent in his proceedings dated 23.11.2017 in Na.Ka. No.156/2017 in New Revised Pay introduced in G.O. Ms. No.303 finance (Pay Commission Department) dated 11.10.2017 and fix the petitioner's pay accordingly from 1.1.2016 with notional effect and monetary benefit from 31.10.2017 and grant consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Saseetharan

¶11

For Respondents: Ms. P.Kavitha, GA for RR-2 to 5 & 8 Mr. R.Selvam, GA for RR-1, 6 & 7 ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for fixation of his pay in terms of the 7^th Pay Commission from 1.1.2016.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that the pay fixation in terms of 7^th Pay Commission, as claimed by the petitioner, was rejected by the respondents by order dated 9.5.2018. It is the stand of the petitioner that subsequent to the rejection of his claim, the Government has passed G.O. Ms. No.306 dated 12.9.18 granting some benefits to its employees. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner should also be extended the benefits pursuant to G.O. Ms. No.306 dated 12.9.18.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that it is for the petitioner to submit representation claiming benefits in terms of G.O. No.306 dated 12.9.18.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation has already been submitted by him to the respondents. However, it is submitted that the petitioner will submit a fresh representation specifically quoting G.O. Ms. No.306 dated 12.9.18, which the respondents may consider and pass orders.

¶16

In view of the limited relief sought for, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to dwell into the merits of the issue, but it would be suffice to permit the petitioner to

¶17

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

¶18

file a fresh representation quoting G.O. Ms. No.306 dated 12.9.18 and the respondents may be directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass orders on the same within a particular time frame.

¶19

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation quoting G.O. Ms. No.306 dated 12.9.18 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said representation, the 5^th respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks therefrom. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gln
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Finance (Pay Cell) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
School Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer
Thiruvarur District, thiruvarur.
5. The District Treasury Officer
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
6. The Assistant Treasury Officer
Valangiman, Thiruvarur District.
+1cc to R.Saseetharan, Advocate, SR.NO.80021
+1cc to the Govt.Pleader, SR.NO.80418.
W.P. NO. 30929 OF 2018
and
W.M.P. NOS. 36076 & 36079 OF 2018
kak(03/01/2019)

¶21

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

S.Mohan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

G.Babu Vs The Commissioner of

Dr.K.Thenmozhi Vs The Director of Medical

Dr. Jacqueline Mary Lamboume Vs The Director of Collegiate

Elaiyappan,S/o.Munian Vs The State of TamilNadu

R.P.Kasthuri, Vs The District Collector

M.Ameerkhan, Vs The Principal Conservator of Forests