Disposed

Thulasiram.R v. The Accountant General

Madras HC7 Jun 2021WP(MD)/9055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to submit the petitioner's service register within a week and the Accountant General to decide the pension proposal within three weeks due to a lockdown-related delay.

What did the court decide?

First respondent to take a decision on the pension proposal and pass final order within three weeks; second respondent to send service register within a week.

Thulasiram.R Vs The Accountant General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9055 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.9055 of 2021

¶6

R.Thulasiram ... Petitioner vs.

¶7

The Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppokottai Division, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent i.e., the Accountant General, Chennai to sanction the pension of the petitioner as per the proposals sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai in his Roc.A1/1295/2016 dated 28.01.2020 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai may be directed to continue to pay the provisional pension till regular pension is sanctioned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishvalingam For Respondents : Mrs.Mahalakshmi For R1. Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Standing Counsel, For R2.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent i.e., the Accountant General, Chennai to sanction the pension of the petitioner as per the proposals sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai in his Roc.A1/1295/2016 dated 28.01.2020 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai may be directed to continue to pay the provisional pension till regular pension is sanctioned.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he was lastly serving as Village Administrative Officer at Vakkanankundu Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District. His date of superannuation was on 30.06.2004. He was not allowed to retire and was placed under suspension, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ since a vigilance case was pending against him. Though he was convicted

¶14

1/3

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.9055 of 2021

¶16

in the Lower Court, this Court set aside the order of conviction and he was acquitted from all the charges in Crl.A(MD).No.77 of 2007 dated 09.11.2011. The fine amount paid by the petitioner was also refunded to him. He was also allowed to retire on his date of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2004 as per proceedings No.A1/1738/2012 dated 26.06.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai and provisional pension was also sanctioned in the proceedings No.A7/1155/2012 dated 15.11.2019 of the Tahsildar, Kariapatti. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Arupukottai has also sent pension proposals to the Accountant General, Chennai in his Roc.A1/1295/2016 dated 28.01.2020 as per the orders issued in W.P(MD).No.20869 of 2018 dated 04.10.2018. But the Accountant General, Chennai has not yet sanctioned the pension. Further the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai who sanctioned the provisional pension in his proceedings dated 26.12.2019 has abruptly stopped it from July, 2020. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The learned counsel for the first respondent would state that the 1^st respondent has not received the service register of the petitioner from the second respondent.

¶19

The learned counsel for the second respondent would state that the service register would be send within a week, if not sent.

¶20

In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to send the service register within a week, if not sent and the first respondent is directed to take a decision on the pension proposal and pass final order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

kmm

¶24

Note: (i) 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.

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.9055 of 2021

¶28

To:

¶29

The Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶30

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppokottai Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.S.VISVALIMGAM, Advocate ( SR-18850 [F] dated 07/06/2021 )

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-19051[F] dated 08/06/2021 )

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.9055 of 2021

¶34

07.06.2021

¶35

AS (07.07.2021) 3P 5C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Thulasiram.R v. The Accountant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulasiram.R v. The Accountant General

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

Singaram.S Vs the District Collector

Sethuramasamy.B Vs the Dist.Collector

Selvaraj.P Vs the Dist.Collector

M/S.v.v.Mineral Vs Union of India

Krishnaveni.S Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Jeyanthi Poornima Vs The Director of School Education