Disposed

A.Vijaya v. The Director

Madras HC7 Jun 2024WP(MD)/11899/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An election grade lecturer approached the High Court for direction to fix her pay scale and consequential benefits. The Court held that the authority had a duty to consider her pending representation and ordered them to do so within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within six weeks of receipt of the order.

A.Vijaya Vs The Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶7

A.Vijaya ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 25.10.2023

¶10

2.The Principal, Ayyanadar Janakiammal Polytechnic College, Chinnakkamanpatti Post, Sivakasi - 626 189. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to stepup the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with her junior M.Raniammal with effect from 01.01.2006 i.e. in the scale of pay of 23,770 + 8,000 = 31,770 and further direct to confer all the consequential benefits considering the 2nd respondent's proposal dated 17.09.2018.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Vijayakumar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate for R1

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner who is a retired Lecturer (Selection Grade) in ANJA Polytechnic College, Sivakasi has given a representation dated 29.06.2022 to the first respondent requesting to re-fix Pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- from 01.01.2009 onwards in her favour positively at the earliest. Since the said representation is yet to be considered, she has come up with this petition.

¶19

2. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of

¶20

this nature is made to a Government Authority, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the same on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. The failure on the part of the Authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition seeking relief through issuance of writ of mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the first respondent is required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶24

3. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a

¶25

direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2022 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶26

4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶27

of . No costs.

¶28

07.06.2024

¶29

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

¶30

mbi

¶31

¶32

1.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 25.10.2023

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶36

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶37

mbi

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.11899 of 2024

¶39

07.06.2024

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

A.Vijaya v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vijaya v. The Director

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

A.Radhakrishnan Vs Joint Director of Health Services

V.Malathi Vs The District Collector

Gunaseelan Vs the Chairman

K.Chellamuthu Vs The District Collector

M.Ravichandran, (Edp No.7078) Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

M.Baskaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu