Disposed

K.S.Shanmugam v. the Registrar

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP/32270/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former watchman, sought issuance of termination order and retirement benefits after oral termination. The Court directed the Respondent Society to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within 12 weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks.

K.S.Shanmugam Vs the Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

W.P.No.32270 of 2025

¶7

1. K.S.Shanmugam

¶8

S/o.Sadayan Near Moorthy Mill, Amman Nagar Kempanaikenpalayam Post, Dasappagounden Pudur (via), Sathyamangalam (Taluk), Erode (Dt)638 503.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Registrar Dept Of Co- Operative Society, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Joint Registrar Dept of Co- Operative Society, Soorampatti Nalroad, Erode.

¶13

3.The Deputy Registrar Of CoOperative Society Near Jeeva Bus Depo.Parvathi Nagar, Gobichettypalayam.

¶14

4.The Secretary

¶15

No.770, Kempanaickenpalayam,

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶18

Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Society (Ltd), Kempanaikenpalayam (po), Dasappagounden Pudur (via), Sathyamangalam (Taluk), Erode (Dt).

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025 for the issue of termination order and also for retirement benefits as per law and pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayan For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthusamy Government Advocate (For R1 to R3) Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham Government Advocate (For R4)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the

¶25

petitioner dated 28.04.2025 for the issue of termination order and also for

¶26

retirement benefits as per law.

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶29

Heard Mr.R.Vijayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

Mr.M.Muthursamy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham, learned Government Advocate for the 4th

¶31

respondent.

¶32

The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in the 3rd respondent-Society in the year 1990 with a salary of Rs.500/- per month, which was periodically increased, and his last drawn wages were Rs.10,000/- per month from the year 2023. The petitioner claims to have rendered continuous service for more than 19 years without any adverse remark

¶33

and that his services were even recognized by the Society by awarding him a meritorious certificate and regularising his service through a resolution dated 12.12.2024. According to the petitioner, he was orally informed on 31.01.2025,

¶34

that his services were no longer required, but no formal termination or retirement order was issued thereafter. The petitioner has made a representation dated 28.04.2025, seeking issuance of retirement/termination order and

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶37

settlement of retirement benefits, but no action has been taken till date by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice

¶39

if this Court issues a direction to the 3 rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders.

¶40

5 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the

¶41

limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the 3 rd respondent to consider and pass orders on t he

¶42

representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.04.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date

¶43

of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

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

¶45

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶46

6. In fine, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.

02-09-2025

kak

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶51

¶52

1.The Registrar Dept Of Co- Operative Society, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶53

2.The Joint Registrar Dept Of Co- Operative Society, Soormapatti Nalroad, Erode.

¶54

3.The Deputy Registrar Of CoOperative Society Near Jeeva Bus Depo.Parvathi Nagar, Gobichettypalayam.

¶55

4.The Secretary No.770, Kempanaickenpalayam, Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Society (Ltd), Kempanaikenpalayam (po), Dasappagounden Pudur (via), Sathyamangalam (Taluk), Erode (Dt).

¶56

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

¶57

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶58

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶59

kak

¶60

WP No. 32270 of 2025

¶61

02-09-2025

¶62

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

K.S.Shanmugam v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Shanmugam v. the Registrar

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

Y.Elizabeth Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Marimuthu Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

K. Vetrivel, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

K.Niranjan Vs the Chairman

A.Perumal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.Sankararaghavan Vs the Chairman