Partly allowed

P. Alagumalai, v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Madras HC8 Mar 2018WP(MD)/1211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a temporary employee seeking pensionary benefits, filed a petition under Article 226. The Court, without examining merits, directed the fourth respondent to consider the pending representation and pass meritorious orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitioner is directed to submit service particulars; the fourth respondent is directed to consider the representation of 28.03.2012 and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks with no order as

P. Alagumalai, Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.03.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2013

P.Alagumalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board limited, and other Corporate Entities, represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, No.144, Anna Salai,

¶8

Chennai – 02.

¶9

2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel) TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02.

¶10

3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Meenatchinayakkanpatti, Bye-pass Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶11

4.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Meenatchinayakkanpatti, Bye-pass Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.4 to provide pensionary benefits to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner has served as temporary employee for about 19½ years and as permanent employee for about 3½ years.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that as per the amended rule of Tamil Nadu Pension Rule, 50% of the temporary service has to be counted for the purpose of reckoning the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ qualification of service for grant of pension under the pension rules. Thus, in the event of counting the half of the services, the

¶17

¶18

writ petitioner would be eligible for pension under the pension rules. In this regard, the writ petitioner had submitted a representation on 28.03.2012 and the same is yet to be considered.

¶19

3.Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, the 4^th

¶20

respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 28.03.2012 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 the particulars related to his service along with the documents, if any, along with the copy of the order passed in this writ petition.

¶21

4.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However,

¶22

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board limited, and other Corporate Entities, represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02.

¶26

2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel) TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 02. 3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Meenatchinayakkanpatti, Bye-pass Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Meenatchinayakkanpatti, Bye-pass Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Advocate, SR.No. 54125

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2013 08.03.2018

¶28

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

¶29

KK/JC/04.04.2018/SAR-4/2P-6C

P. Alagumalai, v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Alagumalai, v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

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

R.Kamuthai, Vs the Director

M.P. Raja Suresh, Vs the District Employment

Dr.P. Beautlin Sheribha, Vs Scott Christian College

V. Murugappan, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Sr. Athychandran, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S.Rajendran, Vs the Secretary to