Dismissed

Y.a.Mahalingam v. Govt of India

Madras HC20 Nov 2023WP/37001/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for non-prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear, the original scheme was closed, and evidence showed the petitioner had already retired by the time of application.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus to direct acceptance of voluntary retirement application was denied due to non-prosecution and retirement status.

Y.a.Mahalingam Vs Govt of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2015

¶7

Y.A.Mahalingam .....Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi.

¶10

2.The Hindustan Photo Films Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director, Indu Nagar, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to accept the petitioner's voluntary retirement scheme application no.Nil dated 26.03.2014 in the light of the circular issued by the second respondent vide his proceedings Ref.No.P1/14/39/VRS dated 21.03.2014 HRD Division.

¶12

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.A.Murugan, CGSC for RR1 & 2

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to accept the petitioner's voluntary retirement scheme application no.Nil dated 26.03.2014 in the light of the Circular issued by the second respondent vide his proceedings Ref.No.P1/14/39/VRS dated 21.03.2014 HRD Division.

¶19

2.There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On an earlier occasion also the petitioner failed to appear before this Court, thereby, this matter is listed today under the caption '' for dismissal''.

¶20

3.Mr.A.Murugan, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel

¶21

appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.

¶22

4.As seen from the records that the scheme of voluntary retirement was closed in the year 2015 itself and also the very fact that the petitioner fails to appear before this Court and argue this case, this Court finds that no cause does survive any more to the petitioner to press this Writ Petition.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2023

¶26

5.Further, the learned Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court, the communication sent to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 03.06.2014 informing that the petitioner was due to retirement in the month of July 2014, that means the petitioner had already retired in the month of July 2014 itself. Therefore, the question of considering application for voluntary retirement by the respondents does not arise and hence this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶27

20.11.2023

¶28

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No dn To

¶29

1.The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2023

¶33

Dr.D. NAGARJUN, J

¶34

¶35

Writ Petition No.37001 of 2015

¶36

20.11.2023

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

Y.a.Mahalingam v. Govt of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.a.Mahalingam v. Govt of India

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

P.Govindan, Vs the Principal Chief

D. Nandakumar, Vs Tourism Culture and Religious

S.Robinson, Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by

K. Anbalagan Vs the Managing Director Cum CEO

E.Murugan Vs The Director

V.Periyasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer