Dismissed

S.a.Muthiah v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Nov 2023WP/20448/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned order to quash and direct grant of pension. The court held the petition infructuous because the revised pension was already disbursed to the petitioner via a letter dated 28.10.2023, rendering no further remedy necessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous following the confirmation that the revised pension was already disbursed.

S.a.Muthiah Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶7

S.A.Muthiah ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶10

The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 014.

¶11

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

The Commissioner, Thiruppulani Panchayat Union, Thiruppulani, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.V4/77365/2008 dated 11.11.2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶14

Page No.1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶17

For petitioner	:	No appearance
For R1 to R3	:	Ms.C.Sangamithirai
		Special Government Pleader
For R4	:	No appearance

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking challenging the proceedings in Na.Ka.V4/77365/2008 dated 11.11.2011 of the third respondent and

¶20

consequently, direct the respondents to grant pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

The facts in brief, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support

¶22

of this writ petition, are as follows:

¶23

2.1. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as Rural Practitioner

¶24

also known as Rural Medical Officer by the Commissioner, Thiruppulani Panchayat Union vide proceedings Roc.No.C3/1453/1966 dated 30.11.1966 and was granted regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.04.1984 onwards and he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1989 after passing 21 years of uninterrupted service.

¶25

Page No.2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶28

2.2. The petitioner approached the third respondent on several

¶29

occasions to send his proposal for pension and he was also informed that he was eligible for pension. The petitioner addressed a representation dated

¶30

05.07.2007 and there was no response for the same. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.7306 of 2009 and directions were issued by this Court on 22.04.2009 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.07.2007 by taking into consideration G.O.(Rt) No.164, Rural Development Department (E5), dated 24.09.2007. Since the petitioner was not granted pension pursuant to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.V4/77365/2008 dated 11.11.2011 rejecting the claim for pension, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶31

No representation on behalf of the petitioner as well a for the fourth respondent.

¶32

The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the first respondent is taking steps to sanction the revised pension basing on G.O.(Ms)(2B) No.77, dated 04.09.2013.

¶33

Page No.3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶36

Learned Special Governmetn Pleader respondents 1 to 3 would

¶37

further submit that letter dated 28.10.2023 addressed to her which stated that revised pension which has to be settled in favour of the petitioner was also disbursed to him.

¶38

Once the revised pension has been settled to the petitioner as

¶39

sought by the him, this writ petition becomes infructuous. Perhaps, for the same reason there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed

¶41

holding that it has become infructuous. No costs.

02.11.2023

vca

To:

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶46

The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 014.

¶47

Page No.4 of 5

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

¶50

DR. D.NAGARJUN,J.

¶51

vca

¶52

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram.

¶53

The Commissioner, Thiruppulani Panchayat Union, Thiruppulani, Ramanathapuram District.

W.P.No.20448 of 2013

02.11.2023

Page No.5 of 5

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

S.a.Muthiah v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.a.Muthiah v. the Secretary to Government

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.Padmanadhan, Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

M.Selvam, Driver (EDP.No.7037) Vs The Managing Director

G.Punitha, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Puthiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Ravi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

T.Muthu Ganesh Vs the Principal Secretary and