Disposed

Sr. Athychandran, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC8 Mar 2018WP(MD)/1657/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought mandamus for the sanction and payment of retirement benefits, provident fund, gratuity, and pension. The court did not decide on eligibility merits but directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation filed on 10.12.2012 and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks. No order as to costs.

Sr. Athychandran, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.03.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.1657 of 2013

¶4

Su.Athychandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶5

2.The Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Protocol II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (Protocol II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶6

4.The Reception Officer and Joint State Protocol Officer, State Guest House, Chepauk, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner's retirement benefits along with the Provident Fund, Gratuity and other commutations and to pay the monthly pension along with the arrears thereto with interest within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in spite of his eligibility of pension as applicable to him has not been disbursed.

¶11

2.The learned Special Government Pleader contents that the writ petitioner is not eligible for pension.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner elaborates the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contention by stating that the writ petitioner is eligible and the pension has not been sanctioned, in view of the fact the the

¶13

¶14

proposal was not submitted in the prescribed format. In this regard, the writ petitioner made a representation on 10.12.2012 and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is ready and willing to submit a proper proposal.

¶15

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

¶16

respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 10.12.2012 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 the copy of the representation and to submit all the relevant documents along with the order copy passed in this writ petition.

¶17

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

¶18

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

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

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Secretary to Government Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶23

2.The Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Protocol II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶24

3.The Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (Protocol II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶25

4.The Reception Officer and Joint State Protocol Officer, State Guest House, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate, SR.No.54095 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 54564

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.1657 of 2013 08.03.2018

¶28

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KK/JC/04.04.2018/SAR-4/2P-7C

Sr. Athychandran, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr. Athychandran, v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

R.Kamuthai, Vs the Director

M.P. Raja Suresh, Vs the District Employment

Dr.P. Beautlin Sheribha, Vs Scott Christian College

P. Alagumalai, Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

V. Murugappan, Vs the Joint Commissioner

S.Rajendran, Vs the Secretary to