Disposed

S.Chidambaram v. The Director of School

Madras HC23 Mar 2018WP/6643/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The retired petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation for counting 50% of his part-time service for pension. The Court, noting the petitioner is a senior citizen, directed the authorities to consider the matter on merits within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation on merits within three weeks of receiving this order.

S.Chidambaram Vs The Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.6643 of 2018

¶6

S.Chidambaram .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director of School Education
D.P.I., College Road
Chennai 600 006
2. The Accountant General (A&E)
Office of the Accountant General
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
3. The District Educational Officer
Perambalur District
4. The Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer
Veppur Union
Perambalur District .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third
and fourth respondents to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 06.02.2016 for the count of 50% of
petitioner's service for a period from 10.07.1967 to 31.05.1984
for 17 years, 2 months and 21 days as a Part-time Vocational
Instructor along with the regular service from 01.06.1984 to
31.05.1998 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary
benefits and to grant arrears of pension and other benefits.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Sreedharan
For Respondents :: Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi
Additional Government Pleader

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The petitioner is a retired Vocational Instructor, who got appointed as a part-time Vocational Instructor at Panchayat Union Middle School, Elumur on 10.7.67 and served till 31.5.84. Later on, his services were regularised with effect from 1.6.84. He was also awarded the selection grade on 1.6.94 and again after completion of one another ten years of service, enjoyed the benefit of special grade pay and finally, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.5.98 from the Panchayat Union Middle School, Nannai, Veppur Union, Perambalur District.

¶10

With this background, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.8.2009 to the effect that the retired employees who worked in non-provincialised service on consolidated pay as well as honorarium pay and daily wages are entitled to compute 50% of the service put in by them for the purpose of pension. Pursuant thereto, a representation has been made by the petitioner to consider his request for counting 50% the services rendered by him from the date of his appointment viz., 10.7.67 to 31.5.84, since the petitioner, having put in less number of countable service for the purpose of pension in view of the belated regularisation order, is not able to get sufficient pension. Therefore, he has made a representation and seeks a direction for consideration of the same.

¶11

The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 79 years, his representation will be considered on merits within a period of four weeks.

¶12

This Court, considering the fact that the petitioner is a septuagenarian, hereby directs the third and fourth respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.8.2009, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶14

//True Copy//

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

To
1. The Director of School Education
D.P.I., College Road
Chennai 600 006
2. The Accountant General (A&E)
Office of the Accountant General
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
3. The District Educational Officer
Perambalur District
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Veppur Union
Perambalur District
+ 1 cc to Mr.R. Sreedharan, Advocate Sr.22121
+ 1 cc to Mr. Government Pleader Sr.22871
W.P.No.6643 of 2018
NM(CO)
EU(10/04/2018 )

¶19

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

S.Chidambaram v. The Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chidambaram v. The Director of School

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

K.Vikram Vs The Commissioner

Jayanthi, Vs District Collector

Tagore National High School Vs The State Tamil Nadu

Rev.Sr.Lourdu Mary Vs The State of Tamilnadu

G.Sathya, Vs The Director of School

M.Karthikeyan, Assistant Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by