Disposed

A.Irudaya Pushpam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Mar 2018WP(MD)/12537/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the College/Authority to issue a service certificate for her tenure as Noon Meal Organizer. The Court declined to adjudicate merits and directed the third respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the third respondent (Panchayat Commissioner) to consider the PETitioner's representation of 15.03.2013 and pass orders within 12 weeks.

A.Irudaya Pushpam, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12537 of 2013

A.Irudaya Pushpam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Assistant Primary Educational Officer, Primary Educational Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Principal, T.D.T.A. Primary School, Panaiyur, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue the service certificate to the petitioner for the period from 10.05.1985 to 24.01.1989 as she worked in T.D.T.A Primary School, Panaiyur, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Muthu Additional Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certificate for the service rendered by her as Noon Meal Organizer from 10.05.1985 to 24.01.1989 has not been granted by the

¶13

¶14

respondents. In this regard, the writ petitioner made a representation on 15.03.2013.

¶15

2.Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.03.2013 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 copy of the representation and the documents, if any, along with the order copy passed in this writ petition.

¶16

3.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(AD-II)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The District Collector,

¶23

Tirunelveli,

¶24

Tirunelveli District.

¶25

The Assistant Primary Educational Officer,

¶26

Primary Educational Office,

¶27

Sankarankovil,

¶28

Tirunelveli District.

¶29

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union Office, Sankarankovil,

¶30

Tirunelveli District.

¶31

1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 54179

¶32

¶33

AE/JC/SAR1/06.04.2018/2P/5C

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.12537 of 2013 07.03.2018

¶35

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

A.Irudaya Pushpam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Irudaya Pushpam, v. the District Collector

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

P. Radhakrishnan Vs the Chairman Cum Managing

V.A. Raj Vs the District Educational

India Evangelical Lutheran Vs the District Educational

R.Kamuthai, Vs the Director

M.P. Raja Suresh, Vs the District Employment

Dr.P. Beautlin Sheribha, Vs Scott Christian College