Disposed

K.Murugesan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Dec 2024WP(MD)/11559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in this pension dispute involving the petitioner's request for counting 50% of North Maharashtra Regiment service, accepted the respondents' submission that the issue of NMR service consideration was already considered and rejected in 2024. Consequently, the Court recorded the submissions and closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no costs awarded.

K.Murugesan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019 and WMP(MD) No.8818 of 2019

¶7

K.Murugesan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Chief Engineer, (Construction and Manintenance) Highways Department, 76, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

¶11

3.The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Alagarkoil Road, Madurai-625 002.

¶12

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Trichy Road, Dindigul-7.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶16

5.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Batlagundu, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶17

6.The Principal Accountant, General (A & E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ...Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.11.2018 of the petitioner and to count 50% of NMR service of 3 years from 06.07.1977 to 05.07.1980 (i.e., 1 year, 6 months and 0 days), to count full regular service (after completion of three years of NMR service) from 06.07.1980 to 19.01.1994 (i.e., 13 years, 06 months and 14 days) along with regular service from 19.05.1999 to 31.05.2019 (i.e., 20 years, 0 months and 13 days) totalling to 35 years, 00 months and 27 days) (rounded to maximum 33 years) as qualifying service for calculation of pensionary benefits and accordingly sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

¶20

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

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner, a Watchman working in Traverler's Bungalow, Highways Department with a grievance that his representation, dated 22.11.2018, to consider 50% of his NMR service along with his regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefits has not been considered by the respondents, has approached this Court in the year 2019.

¶25

2.Today( 06.12.2024), when this writ petition is taken up

¶26

for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, by referring to a proceedings of the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Dindigul in Ku.No.1144/2024/A3/dated 22.11.2024 submits that the petitioner's request to consider 50% of his NMR service along with the regular service has already been considered. However, the petitioner has once again made his representation for the same relief and therefore, it was rejected by order, dated 22.11.2024. A copy of the proceedings, dated 22.11.2024 is also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶30

3.Recording the submission made by the learned

¶31

Government Advocate, this writ petition is closed. If the petitioner is having any grievance, it is always open to him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

06.12.2024

¶33

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶37

¶38

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶39

2.The Chief Engineer, (Construction and Manintenance) Highways Department, 76, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

¶40

3.The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Alagarkoil Road, Madurai-625 002.

¶41

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Trichy Road, Dindigul-7.

¶42

5.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Batlagundu, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶43

6.The Principal Accountant, General (A & E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019

¶47

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶48

vrn

¶49

Order made in W.P(MD)No.11559 of 2019 and WMP(MD) No.8818 of 2019

¶50

06.12.2024

¶51

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Murugesan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Murugesan v. the Government 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

R.Jeyasundari Vs the Director

K.Virumandi,(Police Constable Vs the Director General of

Sathiya Rooban.R Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Murugan, Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

Abdul Khadar Ibrahim.G Vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Felcy Navajothy Vs S.Karmegam