Disposed

Arulmighu Kailasanathar v. Dakshinamurthy

Madras HC13 Sept 2022CRP/4058/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to disburse retirement and pension benefits. The court noted that the benefits were already settled, granting liberty to approach authorities for the remaining pension, and closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach authorities for redressal of grievance regarding monthly pension; no costs.

Arulmighu Kailasanathar Vs Dakshinamurthy — 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

Arulmighu Kailasanathar v. Dakshinamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmighu Kailasanathar v. Dakshinamurthy

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

S.Kannan Vs R.Kuppusamy

Pandurangan Vs Sivakami Ammal

Anbumani Vs S.Ramesh

Subbukutti Deceased Vs S.Balasubramaniyam(Died)

Banumathi Vs Subramanian

N.K.Latha Vs S.Diwakar