Disposed

G.Rajendran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP/778/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding escalation of pay scale and pension revision within twelve weeks, noting that similarly placed juniors received the benefit.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd and 3rd respondents to pass orders on petitioner's representation regarding pay scale revision and pension sanction within twelve weeks.

G.Rajendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶7

G. Rajendran .. Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The Director General of Police, Office of the Directorate General of Police, Santhome High Road, Chenani – 600 004.

¶11

The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Greater Chennai Police) St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

¶12

The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) Pension Section, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to step https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶14

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶15

up of the scale of pay of the petitioner from Rs.54,100/- to Rs.55,700/- by providing annual increments due for the year 2019, on par with his juniors as per the Government letter (MS. No.83), dated 06.02.2019 and prepare the afresh proposal for revision of pay and arrears of salary and pension which applicable to the petitioner and send to the 4^th respondent so as enable to sanction pension, by considering the representation dated 21.05.2020.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.V.Vijayashankar for R4

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a

¶19

direction to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to step up the scale of pay of the petitioner from Rs.54,100/- to Rs.55,700/- by providing annual increments due for the year 2019, on par with his juniors as per the Government letter (Ms. No.83), dated 06.02.2019 and prepare a fresh proposal for revision of pay and arrears of salary and pension as applicable to the petitioner and send it to the 4^th respondent so as enable the 4^th respondent to sanction pension, by considering the representation dated 21.05.2020, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

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

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶23

The petitioner claims that though his juniors scale of pay was

¶24

stepped up from Rs.54,100/- to Rs.55,700/- by providing annual

¶25

increments due for the year 2019, on par with his juniors in accordance with Government letter (Ms. No.83), dated 06.02.2019, the same benefit has not been given to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has given a representation on 21.05.2020 to the respondents. Since the representation has not been considered, till date, he has filed this writ petition.

¶26

Heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶27

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner also claims that similarly

¶29

placed persons who had approached this Court by filing writ petitions were also given the benefit as per Government letter (Ms. No.83), dated 06.02.2019, pursuant to directions given by this Court. The said

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶33

statement is recorded.

¶34

It is for the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation

¶35

on merits and in accordance with law.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2020 seeking for stepping up of his scale of pay from from Rs.54,100/- to Rs.55,700/- by providing annual increments due for the year 2019, on par with his juniors as per the Government letter (Ms. No.83), dated 06.02.2019 and prepare a fresh proposal for revision of pay and arrears of salary and pension as applicable to the petitioner and send to the 4^th respondent for sanction, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

20.12.2022

¶39

(1/2)

¶40

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2

¶41

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

4/6

W.P. No.778 of 2022

To :

The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶46

The Director General of Police, Office of the Directorate General of Police, Santhome High Road, Chenani – 600 004.

¶47

The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Greater Chennai Police) St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

¶48

The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) Pension Section, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

W.P. No.778 of 2022

¶52

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

vsi2

W.P. No.778 of 2022

20.12.2022

(1/2)

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

¶58

6/6

G.Rajendran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rajendran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Anbu Vs The Management of

G. Jayapal Vs The Joint Director of School Education

P.Sundari Vs The Director

A.Senthur Pandian Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.v.Natarajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1