Dismissed

P.Manikkam v. Seenivas R.Reddy IFS

Madras HC25 Mar 2024CONT P/107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order dated 22.12.2022 under which the respondent regularized his service but did not release pension and leave encashment amounts. The High Court accepted the respondent's explanation that benefits are being processed and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit passport size photograph and indemnity bond; High Court retained liberty to re-open if there is delay in disbursal.

P.Manikkam Vs Seenivas R.Reddy IFS — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Cont.P.No.107 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶5

Cont.P. No.107 of 2024

P.Manickam

... Petitioner

Vs.

Seenivas R.Reddy IFS, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Director, Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandaloor, Chennai – 600 048. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Central Act 70 of 1971), praying to punish the respondent from committing contempt of Court by disobeying the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.2688 of 2019 on 22.12.2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Bharathi For Respondent : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader

¶12

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

Cont.P.No.107 of 2024

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶18

Contempt of the order dated 22.12.2022 is complained of by the petitioner.

¶19

2. Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the services of the petitioner were regularized with retrospective effect from 01.02.1999 till his date of retirement viz., 28.02.2021 and the difference in salary amounting to Rs.19,07,863/- has been credited to the account of the petitioner on 14.03.2024. The same is not in dispute. However as a consequence of the regularization, the petitioner would be entitled to pension, gratuity and the difference in salary for the Earned Leave that has not been availed by him.

¶20

3. The respondent has informed the Special Government Pleader that

¶21

steps are being taken for disbursal of those amounts also and insofar as the pension is concerned, the petitioner will have to provide a passport size photograph of him together with his wife and an indemnity bond on Rs.50

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Cont.P.No.107 of 2024

¶25

stamp paper. Once the petitioner submits those documents, the other benefits would also be released.

¶26

4. The statement made is recorded and the contempt is closed with

¶27

liberty to the petitioner to seek re-opening if there is any delay in disbursal of these amounts.

¶28

(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) dsa 25.03.2024 Index : No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

Cont.P.No.107 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶32

dsa

¶33

Cont.P. No.107 of 2024

¶34

25.03.2024

¶35

4/4

¶36

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

P.Manikkam v. Seenivas R.Reddy IFS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Manikkam v. Seenivas R.Reddy IFS

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

Sri Modern Weigh Systems Vs M/S. Nipro Machoi Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Nanchil Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Ambal Agencies

J. Chandran Vs John Britto.C

V.Asokan Solomon Vs Administrative Secretary

C. Ramaiah Vs a. Kothai Atchi(Died)

R.Subramanian Vs Analog Financial Services P Ltd.