Disposed

A.S.Murugesan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2019WP/12834/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, per J. M. Dhandapani, issued a direction in a writ petition regarding pensionary benefits. Petitioners sought increments for a training period. The Court directed the first respondent to dispose of representations within eight weeks, disposing of the writ petition in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representations regarding increments for the training period within eight weeks.

A.S.Murugesan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.09.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.12834 of 2019

¶2

1.A.S.Murugesan 2.T. Vincent 3.R. Subramanian 4.S. Pannerselvam 5.S. Dhayalan 6.N.Balasubramanian 7.D.Gurunathan 8.S. Vadivelu 9.R.Sambandhamoorthy 10.P. Sowrirajan 11.V.Bala Subramanian 12.L. James Mary 13.N.V. Kalyanasundaram 14.R. Kulasekaran ... Petitioners vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 3.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichirappalli. 4.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

¶3

1/4

¶4

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

¶5

5.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶6

6.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶7

7.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶8

8.The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay two increments for the training period, in the post held by them as on 30.07.1992 continuously upto the date of retirement of the petitioners consequently, take into account the said increments in the pensionary benefits and in the monthly pention of the petitioner with all monetary and other attendant benefits as paid to others through G.O.Ms.No.85, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 11.09.2012 based upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.33981 and 39046 of 2005 dated 05.07.2011.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially selected as Rural Welfare Officer (Grade) through Employment Exchange and thereafter, they were undergone training for a period of two years and completed successfully. Thereafter, they joined in the regular post as Rural Welfare Officer Grade – II. After that, the petitioners got promotions and retired from service in various posts, after the cut of date fixed by the Government. Moreover, they are also eligible to get increment from 31.07.1992 onwards. Hence, they made representations to the respondents but till date no orders have been passed.

¶12

2/4

¶13

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

¶14

2.It is the further case of the petitioners that similarly placed persons like the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.33981 and 36904 of 2005 claiming increments for the period of training. The Writ Petitions were allowed on 05.07.2011 by this Court. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.85, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2012 implementing the order dated 05.07.2011 in W.P.Nos.33981 and 36904 of 2005.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice to issue directions to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the representation in accordance with law.

¶16

4.Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents conceded to the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to dispose of the representations of the petitioner, if not disposed already within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mps To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 3/4

¶20

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

¶21

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 3.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichirappalli. 4.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 5.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur. 6.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 7.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 8.The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. +1cc to Mr.K. Sannjay, Advocate sr.79041 W.P.No.12834 of 2019 mg(co) nr 13/11/2019

¶22

4/4

¶23

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

A.S.Murugesan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S.Murugesan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Bharanidharan Vs The General Manager

G.Mahendru Vs Indian Overseas Bank

G.Mathivanan Vs The District Manager

D.Laxman Vs Harmandar Singh IAS

V.Vijith, S/o.Vijayan Vs The Secretary to Government

C.Martin Premraj, Vs The Deputy Inspector General