Disposed

M.Rajendran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Nov 2023WP/23229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board to consider the petitioner's representation regarding pay scale fixation within three months, noting the Authority's dereliction of duty for ignoring the representation, without expressing views on the claim's merits.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

M.Rajendran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.23229 of 2023 and WMP No.22764 of 2023

¶7

M.Rajendran

¶8

K.Balakrishnan

¶9

C.Santhanakrishnan

¶10

S.Ranganathan

¶11

M.Nagamani

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

¶14

The State of Tamil nadu,

¶15

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

The Tamil nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108

¶17

The Financial Adviser and

¶18

Chief Accounts Officer,

¶19

Tamil nadu Khadi and Village Board,

¶20

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

¶21

1/5

¶22

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶23

“Kuralagam” Chennai 600 104

¶24

..Respondents

¶25

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to fix the correct scale of pay as per the guidelines vide Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued based on one Man Commission 2010 and pay the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 in view of our Representations dated 05.06.2023, 14.04.2023, 15.05.2023, 17.04.2023 and 09.04.2023 respectively.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mrs.Karthika Ashok For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government pleader for R1 Mr.S.K.Bose Standing Counsel for R2 and R3

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government pleader for 1^st respondent and Mr.S.K.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶29

The petitioner herein had made a representation to the respondents on 05.06.2023, seeking to fix the correct scale of pay as per

¶30

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

¶31

2/5

¶32

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶33

the guidelines vide Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued based on One Man Commission 2010 and pay the revised pay scale. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶34

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of

¶35

this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him 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 Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the 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 2^nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation

¶37

dated 05.06.2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶39

expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider

¶40

the same on its own merits.

¶41

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶42

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

29.11.2023

¶44

Index:Yes/No

¶45

Speaking order/Non-speaking order rka

¶46

¶47

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, Fort St. George,

¶48

Chennai 600 009.

¶49

The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Kuralagam,

¶50

Chennai 600 108

¶51

The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Tamil nadu Khadi and Village Board, “Kuralagam”, Chennai 600 104

¶52

M.S.RAMESH,J.

¶53

4/5

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶56

rka

¶57

W.P.No.23229 of 2023

¶58

29.11.2023

¶59

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Rajendran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendran 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

C.Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.N.Shettu Vs The Director of Collegiate Education

S.Balakrishnan Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Ganesan Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Nithya Vs The Commissioner

Lakshmi Vs the District Collector