Disposed

C.Thangavelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Dec 2023WP/39195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation and extend salary fixation benefits under G.O. (Sd) No. 216 and No. 69. The court directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same within eight weeks of the order's receipt.

C.Thangavelu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

C.Thangavelu

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

rep. by the Director of School Education, College Road,

¶12

Chennai - 6.

¶13

The Chief Educational Officer, Salem District, Salem.

¶14

The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sangakiri Educational District, Sangakiri, Salem District.

¶15

The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mecheri Union, Mecheri Post, Salem District. ...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to extend the benefit of the G.O.(Standing) No.216 Finance (Pay Commission) Department Page No.1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

¶19

dated 22.03.1993 and its consequential G.O.(Standing) No.69 dated 18.04.2013 passed by the first respondent for fixation of the salary to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation made to the respondents on 23.07.2015.

¶20

For petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For respondents : Ms.M.Jayanthy Additional Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2015 and extend the benefits of the G.O.(Standing) No.216 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 22.03.1993 and also consequential G.O.(Standing) No.69 dated 18.04.2013 passed by the first respondent for fixation of the salary to the petitioner accordingly.

¶23

Counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent.

¶24

The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents has submitted that if certain time frame is fixed by this Court, the respondents would consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2015 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶25

Heard both the sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

Page No.2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

¶29

Considering the limited scope of relief sought by the petitioner

¶30

and also the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2015 and dispose of the same in the manner know to law as quickly as possible at any rate not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶31

11.12.2023

¶32

vca Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Citation : Yes/No To:

¶33

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

¶34

The Chief Educational Officer, Salem District, Salem.

¶35

The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sangakiri Educational District, Sangakiri,Salem District.

¶36

DR. D.NAGARJUN,J.

¶37

Page No.3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

¶40

vca

¶41

The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mecheri Union, Mecheri Post, Salem District.

W.P.No.39195 of 2015

11.12.2023

Page No.4 of 4

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

C.Thangavelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Thangavelu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Pritish Sam Jebaraj, Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

M.Ganesan Vs The Director of Town

S.Sridharan Vs The Commissioner and Principal

Sanjeev Kumar, Vs the Union of India

K.Tamilselvi, Vs The District Collector

S.Gopalakrishnan Vs The Special Deputy