Dismissed

K.Syed Ibrahim v. the Managing Director/Executive Trusty

Madras HC24 Aug 2021WA(MD)/983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order disposing of a writ petition wherein the managing director was directed to consider the appellant's request regarding EPF contribution accumulation. The High Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the writ petition order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of without interfering with the order in the underlying writ petition.

K.Syed Ibrahim Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.983 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.08.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.A.(MD) No.983 of 2021

¶7

K.Syed Ibrahim ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Managing Director/Executive Trusty,

¶10

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Employees Provident Fund Trust,

¶11

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Madurai.

¶12

The Management of

¶13

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division) Ltd, Dindigul Region, Dindigul. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 26.02.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.3816 of 2021.

¶15

Prayer in W.P.3816 of 2021:

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the entire amount stand as the accumulation of his / employee's contribution and the accrued interest thereof in his E.P.F. Account No.5294 forthwith.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraih

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice ]

¶20

The appeal is directed against an order dated February 26, 2021 by which the appellant's writ petition was disposed of by directing the first respondent managing director of the State Transport Corporation in Madurai to consider the appellant's representation of April 24, 2020.

¶21

2.The appellant claims to have retired from service.

¶22

3.However, whether the appellant has retired or not makes no difference, particularly, in the context of the order by which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ managing director of the Corporation has been required to consider

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.A.(MD) No.983 of 2021

¶25

the appellant's request in accordance with law.

¶26

4.It is hoped that the concerned official takes up the representation expeditiously and deals with it on the basis of the facts evident and in accordance with law.

¶27

5.WA(MD)No.983 of 2021 is disposed of without interfering with the judgment and order impugned. There will be no orders as to costs.

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

1.The Managing Director/Executive Trusty,

¶34

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Employees Provident Fund Trust,

¶35

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Madurai.

¶36

The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division) Ltd,

¶37

Dindigul Region,

¶38

Dindigul.

¶39

W.A.(MD) No.983 of 2021 24.08.2021

¶40

RS (02.09.2021) 2P 3C

¶41

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

¶42

2/2

K.Syed Ibrahim v. the Managing Director/Executive Trusty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Syed Ibrahim v. the Managing Director/Executive Trusty

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

Sree Narayana Textile Pvt. Ltd., Vs Industrial Development Bank of India

M/S.Veetra Computer Solution Vs M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank

R.Udayakumar Vs the Commissioner

Kathiresan Vs The District Collector

Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector

G.Jeyachandra Vs the Chairperson