Disposed

Rajendran.S v. the Registrar General

Madras HC16 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for restoration of seniority, promotion, and pensionary benefits following the setting aside of a reduction order. Court directed the District Judge to consider pending representations on merits within two months before disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders on merits within two months.

Rajendran.S Vs the Registrar General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10148 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.(MD) No.10148 of 2021

¶3

S.Rajendran .. Petitioner

¶4

¶5

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 1.

¶6

The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶7

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the original seniority of the petitioner as on the date of passing final orders of punishment of reduction to lower rank in the seniority list passed by the second respondent dated 11.02.2013 and consequently to promote the petitioner the date on which junior R.Ramakrishnan got promoted to Category-II Class IV and further promotion as Shereshtadar and to grant, settle monetary service benefits including pensionary benefits along with belated payment interest intended for the post of shereshtadar by fixing the pay of the petitioner on par with junior Tmt.Gomathy at Rs.66,200/- instead of Rs.59,100/- with effect from 15.04.2019 in view of the setting aside of the order of punishment dated 11.02.2013 by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P(MD).No.15261/2014 dated 18.12.2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan

¶10

For respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶13

Heard Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sivakumar, learned counsel accepting notice for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/3

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.10148 of 2021

¶16

the respondents.

¶17

2.The writ petitioner seeks for a direction upon the second respondent to restore his original seniority as on the date of passing the final orders of punishment of reduction to lower rank in the seniority list passed by the second respondent dated 11.02.2013 and for a consequential direction to promote him on the date on which his junior R.Ramakrishnan got promoted to Category-II Class IV and further promotion as Shereshtadar and to settle monetary service benefits including pensionary benefits by reckoning the service in the post of Shereshtadar and fix his pay on par with his junior Tmt.Gomathy, who is presently drawing Rs.66,200/- instead of Rs.59,100/- with effect from 15.04.2019, on account of the fact that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner was set aside by this Court in W.P(MD).No.15261 of 2014, dated 18.12.2018. Admittedly, the order passed in the writ petition has attained finality after which the petitioner has sought for implementation of the order and the present grievance of the petitioner is that his junior Tmt.Gomathy is drawing higher pay and the order passed in the writ petition was implemented on the verge of retirement and on account of the pay anomaly he is now been granted lesser pension. In this regard, a representation has been submitted to the second respondent on 03.03.2021 and the matter is under consideration of the second respondent. The petitioner has also earlier given representation on 10.02.2021, which is also pending on the file of the second respondent.

¶18

3.In the light of the above, we direct the second respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any opinion of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, any clarification is required from the petitioner, an opportunity of personal hearing may be afforded to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar ()

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

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

¶24

2/3

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.10148 of 2021

¶26

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 . Pkn To: 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 1. 2. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. +1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN ( SR-19503[F] dated 17/06/2021 )

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.10148 of 2021 16.06.2021 GS (23.06.2021) 3P 5C

¶28

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

¶29

3/3

Rajendran.S v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran.S v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Lingappan, Vs G. Venkatasamy Naidu College

Hajee K.K.ibrahim Ali Hr.SEc.School Society Vs Hajee K.K.Ibrahim Ali Hr.Sec.School Society

The State of Tamilnadu Vs Y.Shyni

Selva Kumar.M Vs Union of India

M. Raju Vs the District Treasury Officer

Mayilsamy.P.P Vs State Rep. by the District Collector