N. Balu v. the Additional Chief Secretary
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking pension relief. Instead of adjudicating the claim, the Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representations and pass an order within six weeks. The judgment explicitly states that the Court does not express any view on the merits of the claim.
What did the court decide?
Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. Costs denied.
What the court decided
W.P.(MD) No.3275 of 2020
N.Balu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.3275 of 2020
N.Balu ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 015.
2.The Assistant Director, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Development, District Collector Office Campus, Madurai District.
3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai-625 020. 4.The Block Development Officer(B.D.O.) Block Development Office, Usilampatti Block, Madurai District.
5.The President, Thummanatham Village Panchayath Office, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.
6.The Secretary, Thummanatham Village Panchayath Office, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the lump-sum payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and the Special Monthly Pension for a sum of Rs.2,000/- for every month from the date of retirement ie., 30.06.2018 to the petitioner based on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.348 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.11.2017 within a stipulated time that may be stipulated by this Court.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Direction should be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representations regarding pension claims.
Whether the respondents are under a duty to consider representations redressing an employee's claim and pass orders within a stipulated time.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
N.Balu
- respondent
Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department
- respondent
Assistant Director, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Development
- respondent
District Collector, Madurai District
- respondent
Block Development Officer (B.D.O.)
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court