Allowed

Rajendran.G v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government

Madras HC29 Aug 2023WP(MD)/17115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed a cryptic non-speaking order rejecting a retired official's claim for pay refixation. The Court directed respondents to pass a reasoned order explaining the rejection within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quash the impugned order and direct respondents to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's pay refixation claim within 12 weeks.

Rajendran.G Vs The Agricultural Production… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

G.Rajendran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Industrial Estate,

¶13

Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents

¶14

(R2 is impleaded vide Court order, dated 08.08.2023 in W.M.P(MD)No.15547 of 2023)

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent ie., the Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Chennai in his Endorsement No.ViKuPa5/24862/2022, dated 06.01.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents ie., the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Chennai and the Director of Agri Marketing and Agri

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶19

Business, Chennai to pass fresh orders with reasoning as to why the petitioner's request cannot be complied with, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶20

(Prayer amended vide Court order, dated 08.08.2023 in W.M.P(MD)No.15554 of 2023)

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the second respondent ie., the Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Chennai in his Endorsement No.ViKuPa5/24862/2022, dated 06.01.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents ie., the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Chennai and the Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Chennai to pass fresh orders with reasoning as to why the petitioner's request cannot be complied with, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶25

The petitioner was lastly serving as Secretary in the Selection Grade, Madurai Market Committee, Madurai and he was allowed to retire on

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶29

31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for fixing his pay on par with his junior one V.Ramasamy who has also served lastly as Secretary in the Trichy Market Committee and retired from service on 30.04.2011. The Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Chennai informed the petitioner vide letter, dated 07.10.2021 that the proposals recommending refixation of pay on par with his junior has already been sent to the Government and the orders of the Government are awaited. The petitioner made another representation on 13.12.2022 to the Secretary to the Government pressing for consideration of his representation. While so, the impugned order, dated 06.01.2023 came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's application by cryptic non-speaking order. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently opposed for dismissing the writ petition.

¶31

Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Prakash, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶35

Having recommended the petitioner's case for refixation of pay on par

¶36

which his junior, by taking a U turn, the 2^nd respondent has passed the nonspeaking order in a cryptic fashion without elaborating the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's claim. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 2^nd respondent ought to have passed an elaborate order on the basis of which the petitioner's request was rejected. Hence, this Court hereby quashes the impugned order, dated 06.01.2023 and subsequently, direct the respondents to pass an elaborate order along with the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request for refixation of his pay on par with his junior V.Ramasamy. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶38

29.08.2023

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶40

gbg

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶44

¶45

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶46

2.The Director of Agri Marketing and Agri Business, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶50

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶51

gbg

¶52

W.P.(MD).No.17115 of 2023

¶53

29.08.2023

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Rajendran.G v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran.G v. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government

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

D.Victor Samuvel Vs The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited

Karunanidhi. G Vs The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited

Muthuraj.a Vs The Management of

J. Kanagavel Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Kaironraj.S Vs The Joint Commissioner

Sathishkumar.S Vs Director General of Police