Partly allowed

S.Savarimuthu v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Feb 2023WP/5320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challeged the inaction of a statutory authority regarding the petitioner's request to be enrolled in the Old Pension Scheme instead of the new Contributory Pension Scheme. The Court held that the failure to consider the representation constituted dereliction of duty and directed the respondent to decide the matter within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2022 on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Savarimuthu Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

S.Savarimuthu

...Petitioner

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶11

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai – 28.

¶12

3.The Executive Officer, Chengam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 15.11.2022 for cancellation of enrollment in the newly introduced contribution pension Scheme and to bring the petitioner under Old Pension Scheme and to refund the subscription already recovered from the petitioner salary from 23.6.2006 towards New contributory pension

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

¶17

scheme and to extend the benefit of (Old Pension scheme) implementing G.O.Ms.No. 259 Municipal Administration and Water supply Department dated 17.6.2016, in the light of the reported Judgment in 2014 (2) CTC page 777 in Judgement of Division Bench order dated 30.09.2015 in W.A.(MD) No.1026 / 2015 based on the orders of this Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.No.6126/2016 in 08.04.2016 and implementing G.O.Ms.No.364 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 14.09.2017, in the light of the orders of this Court in W.A.No.357/2013 dated 03.04.2013.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Baskaran

¶19

For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the

¶23

respondents on 15.11.2022, seeking a direction to cancel the petitioner's enrollment in the newly introduced Contributory Pension Scheme and to

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

¶27

bring him under Old Pension Scheme. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this

¶29

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 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.

¶30

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2022 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks 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 3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

¶33

petitioner and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on

¶34

its own merits.

¶35

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands ordered. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

23.02.2023

¶38

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶39

¶40

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶41

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai – 28.

¶42

3.The Executive Officer, Chengam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

W.P.No.5320 of 2023

¶49

23.02.2023

¶50

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Savarimuthu v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Savarimuthu v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Tholkappian Vs District Collector

K.Neelamegam Vs The Joint Registrar of co-operative societies

V.Kuppusamy Vs The Senior Regional Manager

Mary Agnes Ganam Vs The Government of TamilNadu

V.E.Sampath Kumar Vs The Commissioner

C.Karnan Vs The Secretary to Government