Disposed

K.Maruthupandian v. The Commissioner of Milk Production

Madras HC23 Mar 2021WP/5889/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court accepted a writ petition regarding the refund of withheld surrender leave salary. Instead of deciding the refund itself, the court directed the Revisional Authority to decide the pending revision petition within one month, observing that the Authority's inaction on a previous judicial direction constituted utter disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Revisional Authority to decide the pending revision petition within one month from the receipt of this order.

K.Maruthupandian Vs The Commissioner of Milk Production — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.03.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Writ Petition No.5889 of 2021

¶3

K.Maruthupandian ... Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram, Chennai.

¶6

The Managing Director, Villupuram-Cuddalore District, Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., Villupuram. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the 1^st Respondent to give suitable instructions to the 2^nd Respondent to refund the withholding of Rs.1,68,287/- for the retiral benefits of Surrender Leave Salary of the Petitioner with interest.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran For Respondents : Mr.Balaramesh, Additional Government Pleader ORDER Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1^st Respondent to give suitable instructions to the 2^nd Respondent to refund the withholding of Rs.1,68,287/- for the retiral benefits of his Surrender Leave Salary with interest.

¶9

It is seen that, in respect of his grievance, the Petitioner had already approached this Court in W.P.No.21312 of 2018 seeking to consider his Revision Petition dated 01.09.2016, and this Court by an order dated 21.08.2018, disposed of the said Writ Petition, by holding as under:

¶10

“3. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition with the direction to the Petitioner to submit the Revision Petition in proper format within a period of two weeks hence and on filing of such Revision Petition, the first Respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merit within a period of six weeks on receipt of such Petition. It is made clear that, since the Petitioner has applied in time for revision

¶11

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

¶12

though not in proper format, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs.”

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, even though the Petitioner has filed a Revision Petition dated 01.09.2016 to the 1^st Respondent and counter has already been filed by the Respondent before the Revisional Authority, no decision has been taken by the Authority concerned. Hence, having no other alternative, the Petitioner has again approached this Court.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶15

As the Petitioner has already approached this Court by way of a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and there is a direction by this Court to the Authority concerned to decide the matter within six weeks, this Court directs the Revisional Authority to decide the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already decided.

¶16

Before parting with, this Court observes that, nonpassing of an order by the Revisional Authority pursuant to the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21312 of 2018, is utter disobedience to the direction of this Court.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (CS VII)

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

(aeb)

¶23

To:

¶24

The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram, Chennai.

¶25

The Managing Director, Villupuram-Cuddalore District,

¶26

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

¶27

Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., Villupuram.

¶28

+1CC TO MR.R.BALARAMESH, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 19024

¶29

+1CC TO MR.J.MUTHUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 18851

¶30

W.P.No.5889 of 2021

¶31

PCH(CO) KKN 16.04.2021

¶32

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

K.Maruthupandian v. The Commissioner of Milk Production

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Maruthupandian v. The Commissioner of Milk Production

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Murugaiyan Vs The Chairman

T.R.Vijayalatha Vs Director

M.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Kalaiarasi Vs The President

R.Anusuya Vs The Dean

C.Seran Vs The State of Tamilnadu