Disposed

S.Mariappan, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Feb 2025WP(MD)/21090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge order in a writ petition directs the Madurai City Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks to settle his terminal benefits, taking into account a Labour Court award of 30 years of service and a previous High Court order, without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

The Respondent Corporation is directed to consider the Petitioner's representation within eight weeks to settle terminal benefits based on Labour Court award I.D. No. 200 of 1995 and W.P. No. 4597 of

S.Mariappan, Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21090 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No. 21090 of 2016

S.Mariappan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Madurai City Corporation, Aringar Anna Building, Madurai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue of Writ of Mandamus , directing the respondent to settle the petitioners terminal benefits taking into account of petitioner's 30 years of service on the line of award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D No. 200 of 1995 and order of this Court in W.P No. 4597 of 2004 based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2016.

¶13

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinayak, Standing Counsel

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P(MD)No.21090 of 2016

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to settle the terminal benefits by taking the petitioner's 30 years of service based on the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in

¶19

I.D No. 200 of 1995 and order passed by this Court in W.P No. 4597 of 2004.

¶20

Without going into the merits of this case, this Court directs the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 28.09.2016, within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶22

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

06.02.2025

KSA

2/5

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.21090 of 2016

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.21090 of 2016

¶31

¶32

The Commissioner, Madurai City Corporation, Aringar Anna Building, Madurai.

¶33

4/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.21090 of 2016

¶36

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶37

KSA

¶38

Order made in W.P(MD)No. 21090 of 2016

¶39

06.02.2025

¶40

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

¶41

5/5

S.Mariappan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mariappan, v. the Commissioner

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

M.Alexander Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

N.Selvaraj (Died) Vs the Joint Registrar of

J.Jeyasekharan David Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Surulirajan, Vs the Director of School

M.Veluchamy, Vs the Managing Director

T.R.Valsakumari Vs the Principal Secretary