Disposed

P.v.Natarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP/779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to step up the petitioner's pay scale from Rs.54,100 to Rs.55,700 and prepare a proposal for pension sanction. The Court directed the respondents to pass orders on the merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to decide on petitioner's representation and submit pension revision proposal within 12 weeks.

P.v.Natarajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.779 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.779 of 2022

¶7

P.V. Natarajan .. 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 Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai, Chennai – 600 007.

¶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

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P. No.779 of 2022

¶17

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 16.03.2020.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

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 afresh proposal for revision of pay and arrears of salary and pension as applicable to the petitioner and send to the 4^th respondent so as enable the 4^th respondent to sanction pension, by considering the representation dated

¶22

16.03.2020, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P. No.779 of 2022

¶26

The petitioner claims that though his juniors scale of pay was

¶27

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

¶28

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 16.03.2020 to the respondents. Since the representation has not been considered, till date, he has filed this writ petition.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner also claims that similarly

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P. No.779 of 2022

¶36

statement is recorded.

¶37

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

¶38

on merits and in accordance with law.

¶39

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 16.03.2020 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.

¶40

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

¶41

20.12.2022

¶42

(2/2)

¶43

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

¶44

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

4/6

W.P. No.779 of 2022

To :

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

¶49

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

¶50

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai, Chennai – 600 007.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

5/6

¶54

W.P. No.779 of 2022

¶55

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

vsi2

W.P. No.779 of 2022

20.12.2022

(2/2)

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

¶61

6/6

P.v.Natarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Natarajan 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

Statutes considered

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

G.Rajendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1