Allowed

M.Kolandaivelu, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Nov 2018WP/43576/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that drastically reduced a petitioner's pension without prior notice or consideration of objections. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the second respondent to issue a show cause notice, allow a response, and subsequently pass orders on merits complying with legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.9.2016 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice within two weeks, give four weeks to respond, and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Kolandaivelu, Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.11.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.No.43576 of 2016

¶6

M.Kolandaivelu .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Secretary to Government Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Sastri Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001.

¶9

The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) P & A Office (IRLA)

¶10

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 7^th Floor, IRLA, Phase V, Soochna Bhavan Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶11

The General Manager State Bank of India Centralised Pension Processing Centre (4470) No.112/4, Kaliannan Koil Street Virugambakkam Chennai – 600 092.

¶12

The Central Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Chennai rep. by its Registrar Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 4th respondent relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 21.09.2016 bearing Ref.No.OA/310/00049/2014 and quash the same and consequently allow the Original Application in O.A.No.OA/310/00049/2014 and disburse all the arrears of pension with interest from the dates of which the amount became due till the date of disbursement.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Bharatha Sakravarthy

¶15

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

¶16

For Respondents

¶17

: Mr.V.Balasubramanian Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 and 2

¶18

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran for 3^rd respondent

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Made by M.M.Sundresh,J.)

¶21

By the impugned order dated 8.7.2014, the second respondent has re-fixed the pension hitherto paid to the petitioner. By this order, the pension was drastically reduced. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal, inter alia, contending that the said order was passed without notice and in any case, there cannot be any recovery, as the petitioner was not at fault.

¶22

The Tribunal went into the merits and dismissed the Original Application filed and, hence, the present writ petition.

¶23

The stand taken before the Tribunal has once again been taken before us by the respective counsel.

¶24

We do not propose to go into the merits of this case. On a perusal of the order under challenge before the Tribunal, it appears that it is a communication sent by the second respondent to the third respondent, by merely marking a copy to the petitioner.

¶25

Though it is contended that the petitioner was put on notice, there is no indication in the order under challenge, nor there is any consideration of the objections given or raised. Admittedly, the said order has got civil consequences.

¶26

In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 21.9.2016 by directing the second respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to show cause as to why the proposed revision of pension should not be done giving the petitioner four weeks time to respond and on receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks.

¶27

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

¶28

In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Co) //True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

sasi To:

¶32

The Secretary to Government Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Sastri Bhavan New Delhi – 110 001.

¶33

The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) P & A Office (IRLA) Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 7^th Floor, IRLA, Phase V, Soochna Bhavan Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶34

The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Chennai rep. by its Registrar Chennai – 600 104. +1cc to Mr.Bharatha Sakravarthy,Advocate SR.No. 78231 +1cc to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran , Advocate SR.No. 78508 +1cc to Mr.Sai Bharathi, Advocate SR.No. 78563 W.P.No.43576 of 2016 ASK(05/12/2018)

¶35

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

M.Kolandaivelu, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kolandaivelu, v. The Secretary to Government

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

Unza International Limited., Vs Cavinkare Private Limited.

Cavinkare Private Limited, Vs Wipro Limited, (Amended)-Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The New India Assurance Vs Gemini Enterprises

R.Ramesh Vs Union of India

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

G.Srinivasan, Vs The Executive Director-Sr