Disposed

A.Kottaiappan, v. the Principal Accountant

Madras HC15 Mar 2018WP(MD)/11845/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 seeking writ of mandamus to include the petitioner's service period from 1955 to 1960 for pension calculation. The court directed the third respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks without adjudicating the merits immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits on pension service inclusion within 12 weeks.

A.Kottaiappan, Vs the Principal Accountant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.3.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P(MD) No.11845 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

A.Kottaiappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Principal Accountant General(A&E).,

¶10

Office of the Accountant General(A&E),

No.361, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 018.

2.The Director,

The Elementary School Education,

¶15

College Road, Nungambakkam,

¶16

Chennai – 600 006.

¶17

3.The District Elementary School Educational Officer, Government Higher Secondary School Compound,

¶18

Allinagaram, Theni, Theni District.

¶19

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Chinnamanur, Theni District. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include the service period rendered by the Petitioner from 3.1.1955 to 3.4.1960 for calculating the pension benefits and to grant with all other service benefits.

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.S.A.Ajmal Khan For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthu, 2 to 4 Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the service period rendered by him from 3.1.1955 to 3.4.1960 is not taken into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for fixation of pension.

¶24

¶25

2.The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the Writ Petitioner is 88 years old and the service rendered by him during the relevant point of time is not taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of pension. In this regard, the Petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on various dates and finally on 17.12.2012. However, no action has been taken in this regard.

¶26

3.Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 17.12.2012 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of the representation and the relevant documents, if any, along with a copy of this order to the third respondent, for further action.

¶27

4.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Principal Accountant General(A&E)., Office of the Accountant General(A&E), No.361, Anna Salai,

¶33

Chennai – 600 018.

¶34

2.The Director,

¶35

The Elementary School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶36

3.The District Elementary School Educational Officer, Government Higher Secondary School Compound, Allinagaram, Theni, Theni District.

¶37

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Chinnamanur, Theni District.

¶38

+1CC TO M/S.P.GUNASEKARAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.55510 +1CC TO M/S.SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO.56251

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.11845 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 15.03.2018

¶40

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

¶41

vsn MS/KKR/SAR-1/12.04.2018/2P.7C

A.Kottaiappan, v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kottaiappan, v. the Principal Accountant

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

N.Dhanasekaran, Vs the Tamilnadu Government

S. Selvi, Vs the District Collector

Josephine Nirmala Vs Teh State of Tamilnadu

A.R.Rengaraj @ a.R.R.Raju Vs Aranmanai Raman Chettiar

D. Dearaj Athisayaraj, Vs the Accountant General

Smt.Soundaravalli, Vs the Secretary