Dismissed

The Corporation Commissioner v. Suseela

Madras HC18 Nov 2019WA(MD)/1275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal and connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the Madras High Court Bench dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the single Judge order directing payment of monetary benefits to the respondent was legally sound and found no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Time for compliance with the direction to pay benefits extended by four weeks; no costs.

The Corporation Commissioner Vs Suseela — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10874 of 2019

¶7

1.The Corporation Commissioner,

¶8

Madurai Corporation,

¶9

Madurai-625 020.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Service Incharge)

¶11

Madurai Corporation,

¶12

Madurai-625 020. ... Appellants/Respondents

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Suseela ...Respondent/Petitioner

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, against the order passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P. (MD)No.24555 of 2018, dated 13.12.2018.

¶16

Prayer in WP(MD). 24555/ 2018 :

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letters in Ma.NilNo.26/31725/2017 dated 05.02.2018 and Ma.Ni.26/19228/2018 dated 12.10.2018 respectively issued by 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to provide her entire monetary benefits of her deceased husband namely Subbiah son of Vaalavandhan along with interest within the time stipulated.

¶18

For Appellants : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Hemaraj

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

[Judgment of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶24

Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.A.K.Hemaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶25

2.By consent of both parties, this writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

3.After elaborately hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the order and directions issued by the learned Writ Court are perfectly right and calls for no interference. These observations and findings made by the learned Writ Court in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order sets out the correct legal position. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed and the time for compliance of the direction issued by the learned Writ Court is extended by four weeks from today. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

sji

¶31

¶32

1.The Corporation Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-625 020.

¶33

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Service Incharge) Madurai Corporation, Madurai-625 020.

¶34

W.A(MD)No.1275 of 2019 18.11.2019

¶35

JMN(15.11.2019) 2P : 3C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

The Corporation Commissioner v. Suseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Corporation Commissioner v. Suseela

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

The Director General Vs M.Selvam

M.Ramasamy Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Vs R.Emerson Udaisingh

The Commissioner Vs R.v.Rajavel

S.M.K.Balakrishnan, Vs the Union of India

Sahaja Nalvazhvu Sangam Vs the Commissioner