Disposed

G.Arumugam, v. The Secretary

Madras HC30 Jan 2023WP/19709/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct the Secretary, Educational Department, to consider a representation regarding rectification of revised pension. Court directed consideration within six weeks without expressing views on merits, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2015 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from receipt of the order.

G.Arumugam, Vs The Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

G.Arumugam

...Petitioner

1.The Secretary, Educational Department, School Education,

¶11

Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

2.The Accountant General (A&E), Mount Road, Teynampet,

¶13

Chennai - 600 018.

¶14

3.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

¶15

4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur Post.

¶16

5.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,

¶17

Minjur Union, Minjur, Thiruvallur District - 601 203.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶20

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

¶21

1/4

¶22

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

¶23

India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent herein to dispose the representation dated 05.11.2015 submitted with reference to the statement issued by the Assistant Treasury Officer, Ponneri dated 05.04.2016, showing the necessary proof of last drawn salary as Rs.15,170/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy only) so as to enable the 2^nd respondent herein to rectify the mistake while calculating the revised pension on 16.04.2012.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jaganathan

¶25

For R1, R3 to R5 : Mr.M.Shahjahan, Special Government Pleader

¶26

For R2 : Mr.T.Ravikumar, Standing Counsel

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner had given a representation to the first respondent on 05.11.2015 seeking for a direction to rectify the mistake while calculating

¶29

the revised pension on 16.04.2012. Since the representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶30

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this

¶31

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, non-consideration of the representation by the

¶32

2/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

¶35

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.

¶36

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2015 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

30.01.2023

¶38

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶39

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

1.The Secretary, Educational Department, School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶45

2.The Accountant General (A&E), Mount Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

¶46

3.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

¶47

4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur Post.

¶48

5.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,

¶49

Minjur Union, Minjur, Thiruvallur District - 601 203.

¶50

W.P.No.19709 of 2016

¶51

30.01.2023

¶52

4/4

¶53

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

G.Arumugam, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Arumugam, v. The Secretary

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.Kandasamy Vs The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

K.Babu, S/o.K.Gopal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Ravi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.K.Mohamed Sirajuddin Vs The Principal Secretary to

T. Suresh Kumar Vs The Commandant

A.Sambandan, 61 Years Vs The Additional Registrar