Disposed

A.Karunagaran v. The Principal secretary to Govt

Madras HC19 Jan 2023WP/34162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-consideration of his representation regarding pension and monetary benefits. The High Court held that keeping the representation pending amounted to dereliction of duty and granted liberty to file a fresh consolidated representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh consolidated representation to be considered by the first respondent within six weeks.

A.Karunagaran Vs The Principal secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

¶7

A. Karunagaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Public (Special-B) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

3.The Chairman, One Man Commission, (Pay Anomaly), Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take all the G.Os and Rules and Provisions as shown above, which are, Ruling 13(IX) of Rule 26(a) of Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, Rule 78 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

¶13

dated 31.12.2014, Enclosure with caption, 'pension working calculation statement upto commutation value of pension' to letter No.3479/SpecialB/2015-1 dated 04.02.2016 of Public (Spl-B) Department to the Accountant General (GAD-IV) Chennai – 18, G.O.Ms.No.313 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 25.10.2017, G.O.Ms.No.148 P&AR (FR-II) Department dated 31.10.2018 extending the benefits given to a retired and deceased employee into account and pay the petitioner all the monetary benefits due to him in relaxation of Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules G.O.Ms.No.303 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 11.10.2017, taking into account the monetary hardships of the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.Chelliah, Senior Counsel for Mr.C. Saifullah

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.H. Ravi Kumar, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner herein had given representation dated 08.05.2018.

¶18

Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶19

2. It is needless to point out that whenever representation of this

¶20

nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

¶24

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.

¶25

3. Since the representation given by the petitioner dates back to the year 2018, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be granted liberty to give a fresh consolidated representation, with a consequential direction to the respondents herein, to consider the same.

¶26

4. In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted

¶27

liberty to give a fresh representation to the first respondent herein, ventilating his grievances. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by

¶28

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

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Sni

the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider

¶33

the same on its own merits.

¶34

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

¶35

No costs.

¶36

19.01.2023

¶37

Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/No

¶38

Sni

¶39

¶40

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Public (Special-B) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶42

3.The Chairman, One Man Commission, (Pay Anomaly), Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

W.P.No.34162 of 2018

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

A.Karunagaran v. The Principal secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Karunagaran v. The Principal secretary to Govt

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

K.Anbalagan Vs The Director

M.Prabakar, Vs Additional chief secretary

R.Indira Gandhi Vs Govt of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Mr.S.T.Samidurai

B.Ramesh, Agricultural Officer Vs Director of Agriculture

The Management Vs a.Gopalakrishnan