Dismissed

R. Manoharan, 55 Yrs, v. S. Gopalan

Madras HC26 Aug 2022CRL RC/1271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a thin order in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court agreed that the terminal benefits were settled. It held the petitioner could approach authorities for the monthly pension. The petition was closed with liberty granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities for the monthly pension.

R. Manoharan, 55 Yrs, Vs S. Gopalan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶6

S.Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.

¶9

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

¶10

a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2017 to disburse the retirement benefits and pension benefits to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Babu

¶12

1/4

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition has been filed to directing the respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2017 to disburse the retirement benefits and pension benefits to the petitioner.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the writ petitioner have already been settled. If at all, the monthly pension is yet to be paid, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities for redressal of this grievance. With this liberty, this writ petition stands closed. No Costs.

¶18

22.09.2022

¶19

Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order/Non-Speaking order ssr To

¶20

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶24

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.

¶25

3/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶28

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶29

ssr

¶30

W.P.No.31828 of 2017

¶31

22.09.2022

¶32

4/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R. Manoharan, 55 Yrs, v. S. Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Manoharan, 55 Yrs, v. S. Gopalan

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

K.Heerachand, Aged 55 Years, Vs State by

R.R.Muthu, AGE-48 Vs S.Sreenivasan

Rangasamy, 25 Yrs, Vs Brinthaveni

Bangaru, Prioprietor, Vs Mrs.Manju Parkavi

Veerabadran, Aged 60 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Gopalakrishnan, Aged 29 Years, Vs State Rep. by