Disposed

R.Loganathan v. G.Babuji

Madras HC8 Sept 2022CRP/3997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking a mandatory writ to compel respondents to dispose of a representation regarding the disbursement of retirement and pension benefits. The trial court closed the petition on a liberty to approach authorities for the pending monthly pension as benefits were reportedly settled.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to approach authorities for redressal of grievance regarding monthly pension; no costs.

R.Loganathan Vs G.Babuji — 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.Loganathan v. G.Babuji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Loganathan v. G.Babuji

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

Ramachandiran Vs Arumugam

Prathish Vs the State Rep by

Jayakumar Vs the State Rep by Its

P.J. Johnson Vs Ramathilagam

K.Sivasamy Vs Kamalaveni

Putalayee Ammal Vs Murugan