Disposed

S.Roobavathy v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jan 2021WP/20376/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a direction to the Corporation of Chennai to consider and process a claim for group insurance benefits of Rs. 3 lacs arising from the death of the petitioner's husband in service was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's request for the Group Insurance amount within three months and communicate the decision in writing.

S.Roobavathy Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.20376 of 2020

¶6

(Heard through VC)

¶7

S.Roobavathy .. Petitioner

¶8

-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Zone XV, Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated
15.02.2020 regarding disbursement of Chennai City Corporation
NMR Group Insurance amount of Rs.3 lacs on account of the demise
of her husband Mr.M.Sekar on 12.01.2020, within a time-frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mr.Ganesan O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with the prayer to direct the respondents herein to consider her representation dated 15.02.2020 regarding disbursement of Chennai City Corporation NMR Group Insurance amount of Rs.3 lacs on account of the demise of her husband Mr.M.Sekar on 12.01.2020, within a time-frame.

¶11

Mr.Ganesan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶12

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

¶13

It is stated by the petitioner that her husband was employed in Chennai City Corporation, who died in harness and that there is a Group Insurance taken for the employees, based on which, the petitioner would be entitled to Rupees Three lakhs on account of the demise of her husband M.Sekar on 12.01.2020.

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by Mr.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that if the petitioner is eligible and that the name of her husband is covered by the Insurance Scheme, the request of the petitioner would be considered and the necessary monetary benefits due to her, will be extended.

¶15

In view of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for extending the eligible Group Insurance amount on the demise of her husband M.Sekar on 12.01.2020 and the eligible monetary amount shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision taken thereon, shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing so that in case of any adverse decision, the same shall be challenged by the petitioner, in the manner known to law. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RSI
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Zone XV, Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119.

¶17

W.P.No.20376 of 2020

¶18

TE (29/04/2021)

¶19

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

S.Roobavathy v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Roobavathy v. The Commissioner

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

Y.Gnansekar alias Sekar Vs The Chief Engineer / Personnel

S. Rajasekaran Vs a. Anbarasu, IAS

R.Ravi Vs a.Sathanai Kural

K.Selvaraju Vs State Express Transport Corporation

K.Saraswathi Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Vasantha Bai, Vs The Chief General Manager