Partly allowed

P.Vedhavalli v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Sept 2019WP/512/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner, a retired Noon Meal Helper, sought direction to issue retirement benefits and pension after delayed processing. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider her representations and decide on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider petitioner's representations and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

P.Vedhavalli Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.512 of 2019

¶6

P.Vedhavalli ...Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1.The Director Collector, Office of the District Collector, (Noon Meal Programme Section), Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. 2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Office of the Panchayat Union, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, consider petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016, 30.01.2016, 20.12.2017 and 11.04.2018 and direct the respondents herein to issue all the petitioner's retirement benefits and also grant pension to the petitioner within stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugabharathi For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Selvam for R1 Government Advocate

¶10

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to consider petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016, 30.01.2016, 20.12.2017 and 11.04.2018 and direct the respondents herein to issue all the petitioner's retirement benefits and also grant pension to the petitioner within stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed as a Noon Meal Helper in Child Welfare Noon Meal

¶12

Centre, Maruthur South Keelakadu, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. On the basis of the consolidated pay fixed by the second respondent Panchayat Union. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Child Welfare Noon Meal Centre, Maruthur South to Murugu Aided Primary School, Maruthur South on 04.06.1999. Further, the petitioner was transferred to another School. While she was in service, due to poor health and decided to go for Voluntary retirement from service at the age of 56 years. The said Voluntary retirement application was accepted by the second respondent on the same day forwarded to the first respondent. The first respondent issued proceedings permitting and allowed the petitioner to the Voluntary retirement vide proceedings dated 31.12.2014. Thereafter, the second respondent sent a pension proposal and retirement benefits proposal to the first respondent as per the proceedings dated 14.03.2016. However, till date, the first respondent has not considered the request to grant all the retirement benefits and pension and also was not given reply to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner sent various representations to the respondent from the year 2016 with regard to the petitioner's retirement benefits and also grant pension to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's representations were not considered till date. He prayed for short time to be fixed to disburse the benefits.

¶14

4.Without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to issue direction to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

pam

¶19

¶20

1.The Director Collector, Office of the District Collector, (Noon Meal Programme Section), Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

¶21

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

¶22

2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Office of the Panchayat Union, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶23

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.77775

¶24

+1cc to Mr.R.Murugabharathi, Advocate Sr.77645

¶25

W.P.No.512 of 2019
svI[co]
srg 18/11/2019

¶26

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

P.Vedhavalli v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vedhavalli v. The District Collector

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

K.Kalaiyarasi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

J.saranya Vs The State Tamilnadu

E.Gnanam (HC-14426) Vs The Director General of

R.Jambukesan Vs The Secretary

P.Vinayagamurthy Vs The Superintendent of Police

M.Ramachandran Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt