Disposed

E.Mangani v. The Inspector general of Registration

Madras HC5 Mar 2019WP/2008/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Registrar to consider a representation for granting consequential service benefits due to the petitioner's deceased husband. The court directed the respondent to consider the submission and pass orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation documents; respondent directed to consider representation and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

E.Mangani Vs The Inspector general of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :05.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.2008 of 2019

¶6

E. Mangani ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road,

¶9

Chennai- 600028. .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ, order or direction and in particular to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to consider petitioner representation dated 27.04.2017 to pass necessary orders for grant of promotion and cash benefits due to her husband namely Eswaran (late) during his service.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.M.Balaji

¶12

For Respondent: Mr. T. M. Pappiah, Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶13

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that consequential service benefits due to the deceased husband of the writ petitioner is yet to be settled by the respondents.

¶14

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the cases against the husband of the writ petitioner were dropped and the retirement benefits were already settled in favour of the writ petitioner. However, other consequential service benefits due to the writ petitioner are yet to be settled and in this regard the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Inspector General of registration on 27.04.2017.

¶15

Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the respondent is directed to consider the relevant document submitted by the writ petitioner on 27.04.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a

¶16

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

¶17

period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation and all other relevant documents, if any, along with the order passed in the writ petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrn
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai- 600028.
+1cc to Mr.M.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No. 20390 (26/04/2019)
W.P.No.2008 of 2019
BR(CO)
GMY(23/03/2019)

¶21

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

E.Mangani v. The Inspector general of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Mangani v. The Inspector general of Registration

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

Dr.S.Siva, M.D., Vs The Secretary to Government

B.Babu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Krishnaveni Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Balasundaram Vs The Superintending Engineer

P.Muthulakshmi Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service commission

S.Latha Vs The District Collector