Dismissed

I.Ganesan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP/9806/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought re-fixation of pay as Assistant Jailor from 01.06.2009 and revised pension benefits, challenging rejection proceedings issued in reply to his RTI representation. The court found an identical proposal had been returned earlier by letter dated 24.01.2013 which attained finality; since that letter was not challenged, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

I.Ganesan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.9806 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.31282 of 2016

I.Ganesan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home (Prison.1) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.

¶13

4.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶14

5.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Salem.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶18

6.Thiru M.Elangovan, Retired Ist Grade Warder Sub Jail, Bhavani.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent herein namely the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem, bearing No.CC1/9693/2014 dated 02.03.2015 rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-fixing the pay once again as there is no provision under the rules quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to revise and re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Jailor with effect from 01.07.2009 as has been extended to Thiru M.Elangovan, Grade I Warder, Retired and by re-fixing his pension at Rs.16830/- and to direct the 4^th respondent herein namely the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018, to issue necessary authorization for revised pensionary benefits like D.C.R.G., Commutation, Pension and Family Pension and other retiral benefits 2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶23

and pay the arrears arising out of such re-fixation of pension within a

¶24

short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Thirumoorthy

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, 1 to 3, 5 Government Advocate (Edn.)

¶27

For Respondent 4 : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition has been filed questioning the proceedings No.CC1/9693/2014 dated 02.03.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent in response to a representation dated 01.09.2014 submitted by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking to furnish certain information.

¶31

From the perusal of material on record, it is noticed that an identical claim as is made by the petitioner in the present writ petition was also submitted to the 4^th respondent by the 3^rd respondent in the year 2012-13 and the said proposal was returned by

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶35

the Office of the 4^th respondent through Letter No. Pen 23/V/22305333/TN/12-13/Final Reply dated 24.01.2013 furnishing

¶36

the reason, for which, the petitioner was not entitled for revision of his pay. A copy of the said letter is also marked to the petitioner but for the reason best known to the petitioner without taking any action against the said letter dated 24.01.2013, once again he had submitted a representation under RTI Act, and the said information is furnished to the petitioner through the impugned letter. As the proposal submitted by the 4^th respondent was already returned on various grounds, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be entertained, in the absence of challenge to the letter dated 24.01.2013.

¶37

This Court is not inclined to examine the matter on merits,

¶38

especially, in the context and the fact that the said letter dated 24.01.2013 attain finality. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the above

¶43

terms, leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against the letter dated 24.01.2013 issued by the 4^th respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.31282 of 2016 is closed.

¶44

05.12.2024

¶45

rna

¶46

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶47

¶48

1.The Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶49

2.The Secretary to Government, Home (Prison.1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶50

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.

¶51

4.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶52

5.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury,

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.9806 of 2015

¶56

Salem.

¶57

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶58

rna

¶59

W.P.No.9806 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.31282 of 2016

¶60

05.12.2024

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

I.Ganesan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

I.Ganesan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Acharya Vs The Union of India

Dr.R.Thiagarajan Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary & Animal

D.Subramaniyan, Vs The Principal Secretary

P.Rajasekar, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

S.Vairamani, a.E.E./Tangedco Vs the Tamil Nadu Generation and

M.Prince Muthuraj Vs Engineering Diploma Assn.