Disposed

Palanichamy. a v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Jul 2022WP(MD)/554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for mandamus, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Madurai Corporation Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation regarding PF and leave salary encashment within eight weeks, citing the authority's duty under Article 226 to address such representations without indefinite delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2020 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Palanichamy. a Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD)No.554 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.554 of 2021

A.Palanisamy

... Petitioner

/vs./

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to disburse the encashment of leave salary and special provident fund in terms of the orders made in W.A.(MD)No.105/2019 dated 31.07.2019 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan

¶15

Standing Counsel

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

WP(MD)No.554 of 2021

¶20

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondent on 12.08.2020 seeking for disbursement of the encashment of leave salary and special provident fund, in terms of the orders made in W.A.(MD)No.105/2019 dated 31.07.2019. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

2. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶22

3. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2020 on 2/4

¶23

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

¶24

WP(MD)No.554 of 2021

¶25

its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶26

4 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶27

21.07.2022

¶28

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sm

¶29

To:

¶30

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

WP(MD)No.554 of 2021

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Order made in W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2021

¶37

Dated: 21.07.2022

¶38

4/4

¶39

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

Palanichamy. a v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanichamy. a v. The Commissioner

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.Kaliyanandi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Esakkimuthu Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt.

A.Joseph, Vs Mr.S.Karunanithi

Sumathy.S Vs The Director of School Education

Hajee K.E.Muhammad Ismayil Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Ramamoorthy.C Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt.