Disposed

G.Ravindranath, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Feb 2023WP/21338/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning retirement benefits, the petitioner and respondents reached a compromise before the High Court Legal Services Committee National Lok Adalat. The Government Advocate produced a receipt showing full settlement of benefits with interest. The court closed the petition and connected miscellaneous petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed based on settlement; full court fee refunded.

G.Ravindranath, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 11^th day of February 2023

¶3

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

¶4

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) Presided over by

¶5

The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr. P.Rosiah, District Judge (Retd), Member

¶8

Mrs.A.Veeramarthini, Member

¶9

W.P. No.21338 of 2012 and

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Ni.Mu.16925/Na.O.Sa(6)/2012 dated 03.07.2012 and quash the same in so far as the direction to retain the amount with the 4^th respondent Municipality and further direct the respondents to draw and disburse all the retirement benefits within a reasonable time along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of retirement to till the date of such disbursement.

¶11

G.Ravindranath .. Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶14

2.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

3.The Director of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam, Chennai-108.

¶18

The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi.

¶19

The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, Coimbatore Dt. .. Respondents

¶20

This case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. Mr. M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Tamilvendan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent are present.

¶21

After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶22

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶23

Challenging the order passed by the 3^rd respondent and also seeking a direction to retain the amount with the 4^th respondent Municipality and to draw and disburse all the retirement benefits within a reasonable time.

¶24

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, both the petitioner along with his counsel and learned Government Advocate appeared. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would submit that already entire retirement benefits along with interest was received by the petitioner and to that effect, he produced the copy of stamped receipt dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15.01.2022.

¶25

¶26

Considering the fact that already entire terminal benefits were settled to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed with liberty to approach the concerned Consumer Forum for appropriate remedy. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶27

G.Ravidranath

¶28

Counsel for Petitioner

¶29

Government Advocate Counsel for respondents

¶30

This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶31

The full court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 2 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

¶32

Judge Member Member

¶33

To:The parties/Advocate concerned

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

Copy to:

¶37

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶38

2.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶39

3.The Director of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam, Chennai-108.

¶40

The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi.

¶41

The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, Coimbatore Dt.

¶42

6.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶43

7.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶44

8.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.+2 copies

¶45

rpp

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶49

rpp

¶50

W.P. No.21338 of 2012

¶51

11.02.2023

¶52

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

G.Ravindranath, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ravindranath, 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

Kingsly Paul Vs the State Rep by

A. Alok Vs Inspector of Police

Mohamed Ibrahim Vs State Rep by

R.Palanisamy Vs M.Rajagopal

// of the Managing Director Vs Minor Tamilarasan

The Divisional Manager Vs Aamirkhan