P.K.Babu Vs Union of India

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to fifth respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.2024, to draw and disburse the arrears for Yantrik Pay as per 6^th Pay Commission, in light of the order passed in W.P.No.17038 of 2020 dated 08.07.2022 and the Office Memorandum issued by the first respondent in F.No.8(5)/2022-D/(CG) dated 28.05.2024 within a stipulated time frame.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jegan Inbarajan For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus directing the first to fifth respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.2024, to draw and 2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.22385 of 2024

¶29

disburse the arrears for Yantrik Pay as per 6^th Pay Commission, in light of the order passed in W.P.No.17038 of 2020 dated 08.07.2022 and the Office Memorandum issued by the first respondent in F.No.8(5)/2022-D/(CG) dated 28.05.2024 within a stipulated time frame.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner voluntarily retired from service in the Indian Coast Guard as Sahayak Engineer on 01.04.2010, after serving more than 28 years. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to Yantrik Pay arrears for the 6th Pay Commission, as per the recommendation of the Fast Track Committee dated 21.08.2009, with retrospective effect from 2006 for all purposes. In this connection, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 08.07.2024, which is pending with the first to fifth respondents.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.22385 of 2024

¶35

At this juncture, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that they had already considered the petitioner's representation. However, it is a pertinent question as to the date of the order; the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has no instructions in that regard. Therefore, it is apparent that no written order has been passed in pursuance of the petitioner's representation.

¶36

In such view of the circumstances, without going to the merits of this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024, and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37