Dismissed

T.Rajkumar v. the Principal Accountant

Madras HC13 May 2023WP/34088/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a National Lok Adalat, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai, adjudicated W.P.No.34088 of 2012 regarding disbursement of pension benefits for the petitioner's deceased father. The court verified that the petitioner received the benefits and allowed the withdrawal of the petition, dismissing the writ and closing connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition; consequent closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.

T.Rajkumar Vs the Principal Accountant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 13th day of May, 2023 NATIIONAL LOK ADALAT

¶3

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

¶4

Presided over by

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr. V.Arumugam, District Judge (Retd) 2. Mr. P.G.Perumal Pandian, Advocate

¶8

W.P.No.34088 of 2012 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012

¶9

(This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 09.10.2012 in P.34/13400135/4/PPO No.F3400135/130 and the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 26.11.2012 in Ka.No.6830/2012/P1, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse all monetary benefits of the petitioner's deceased father Thimmaraj, with proportionate share of the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

T.Rajkumar .. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlement Department) Tamilnadu, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶13

2.The District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶14

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

¶16

3.The District Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶17

4.Kaveriammal

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

On representation of counsel for both sides, this case is taken up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. Mr.R.Rajadurain, Advocate for Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Selvam, learned counsel for the second respondent are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the writ petitioner is present. Mr.Selvam, the authorised representative of the second respondent is also present. It is informed that the writ petitioner had been paid all benefits and thereby he is willing to withdraw this writ petition. This Court has personally verified and the writ petitioner has also confirmed the same.

¶22

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

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

¶24

Judge

¶25

Member Member

¶26

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

¶28

¶29

The parties/Advocate concerned

¶30

Copy to:

¶31

1.The Principal Accountant General,

¶32

(Accounts and Entitlement Department) Tamilnadu, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶33

2.The District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶34

3.The District Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶35

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

¶36

5.The Section Officer, Writ Section, High Court, Madras.

¶37

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

¶38

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

P.B.BALAJI, J.

rna/drl

W.P.No.34088 of 2012

¶43

13.05.2023

¶44

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

T.Rajkumar v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rajkumar v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Srikals Graphics Private Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Indusind Bank Limited Vs The Regional Transport officer

Exide Industries Limited Vs Deputy commissioner (Ct)

The Senior Managing Director Vs P.Paneerselvam

T.Mayilsamy Vs The Superintendent Engineer

C.Sumathi, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu