Allowed

Andrew Chandrakumar, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2811/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandate for the payment of the petitioner's salary from his appointment date. The Court directed the Government, Collegiate Education Department, and the college to disburse the salary, qualification approval, and benefits within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to forward the proposal within two weeks and disburse salary and benefits within eight weeks of the college's proposal.

Andrew Chandrakumar, Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2811 of 2018

Andrew Chandrakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tami Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

¶13

4.St. John's College, Rep. by its Secretary, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to disburse the petitioner's salary from the date of his appointment i.e., 10.12.2010 onwards with all attendant benefits.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar for R1 to R3

¶16

Mr.J.Bharathan for

¶17

Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam for R4

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is working in the fourth respondent college as Physical Director. He was appointed on 10.12.2010. The said appointment was made in respect of sanctioned post. Admittedly, the petitioner is possessing the requisite eligibility qualification also to hold the said post. The appointment was rightly approved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ But the order of approval came only after a round of litigation. While disbursing the salary, the department disbursed the same from

¶20

¶21

the date of qualification approval. This is obviously not proper. The petitioner is not entitled to be paid his salary and other benefits from the date of his original appointment. It appears that on account of some difference with the predecessors in the college Management, the petitioner's case was not properly taken up.

¶22

2.Now, the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that they would forward the proposal to the third respondent within two weeks. On receipt of such proposal from the fourth respondent, the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter and also ensure that the benefits payable to the petitioner are disbursed within eight weeks thereafter.

¶23

This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Principal Secretary to Government of TamilNadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George,

¶30

Chennai – 600 009.

¶31

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

¶33

+1CC TO M/S.T.R.JEYAPALAM, ADVOCATE, SR NO.55888 +1CC TO M/S.R.SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.55399

¶34

+1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO.55661

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.2811 of 2018 14.03.2018

¶36

skn

¶37

MS/SKN-RSK/SAR-4/16.03.2018/2P.7C

¶38

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

Andrew Chandrakumar, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrew Chandrakumar, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

M.Muthumanoharan, Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Santhanam Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Op.

Dr.S.N.Mohan Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Krishnaveni Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Arul Thai Suganthi Vs District Educational Officer

S.Ramasundaramani Vs the Principal Secretary