Disposed

S.Sundaribai v. The Director

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WP/24085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench judgment disposed of a writ petition filed by eight petitioners seeking implementation of a Government Order to include half of their temporary service period for pension calculation. The Court directed the respondent to consider a pending representation on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 07.12.2017 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

S.Sundaribai Vs The Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.24085 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.24085 of 2022

¶7

1.S.Sundaribai 2.C.N.Lakshmi 3.A.Sahayamary 4.G.Subramanian 5.N.Nicholas 6.R.K.Jayalakshmi 7.T.Lalitha 8.Mrs.M.Marimuthu

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Director, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the G.O.No.408 dated 25.08.2009 for the benefit of taking into account of half of the service period of temporary employment of the petitioners for the calculation of the pension from the date of retirement of the petitioners.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Narayanamoorthy

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.V.Manoharan AGP

¶15

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

1/4

W.P.No.24085 of 2023

ORDER

Heard Mr.P.Narayanamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶20

Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶21

The petitioners have given representation individually on 07.12.2017 to implement the G.O.No.408 dated 25.08.2009 for the benefit of taking into account of half of the service period of temporary employment of the petitioners for the calculation of the pension from the date of their retirement. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

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 respondent 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 Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶23

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 07.12.2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P.No.24085 of 2023

¶26

seeking to implement the G.O.No.408 dated 25.08.2009 for the benefit of taking into account of half of the service period of temporary employment of the petitioners for the calculation of the pension from the date of retirement of the petitioners 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 expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶27

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

21.11.2023

¶29

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sr

¶30

¶31

The Director, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010

¶32

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

3/4

W.P.No.24085 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

W.P.No.24085 of 2022

21.11.2023

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

¶40

4/4

S.Sundaribai v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sundaribai v. The Director

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

K.Chakravarthy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

T.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

S.Sivakumar Vs M/s. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.Sree Priya Dharshini Vs The Member secretary

P.Sudha Vs the Secretary

K.Ravi Vs the Deputy Registrar