V.Srinivasan, v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI W.P.No.10105 of 2018 V.Srinivasan .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2. The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 05.
3.The District Collector, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.
5. The Tahsildar, Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam District .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation dated 31.12.2017 regarding sanction of minimum retirement petition from the date of retirement (i.e) 31.01.2006 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Ramya
For Respondents : N.Srinivasan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner is a retired Village Administrative Officer, Nagapattinam District. Though he had rendered unblemished service of 9 years and 3 months, he had not been accorded with pension. It is tobe noted that, the Government by issuing G.O.No.158 Revenue Department dated 08.04.2015, in similar circumstances many of the cases of Village Administrative Officers were considered by the Government and they have been accorded with minimum pension. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.11.2014 requesting the respondents 1 to 3 to grant minimum pension as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also marked a copy of the said letter to the 4th respondent and sent further representation dated 31.12.2017.
Since no response is forthcoming, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition seeking for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 31.12.2017 regarding sanction of minimum retirement petition from the date of retirement (i.e) 31.01.2006 with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
so also, perused the materials available on record.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose is going to be served by seeking a Counter affidavit from the respondents and hence, this Court directs the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2018, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the representation of the petitioner. No costs. 11.06.2018 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rka SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI.,J rka To
1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2. The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 05.
3.The District Collector, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.
5. The Tahsildar, Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam District W.P.No.10105/2018 11.06.2018
W.P.No.10105 of 2018 SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI,J.
This matter has been listed under the caption "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in 5th line, paragraph 3 of the order passed by this Court on 11.06.2018 in the above writ petition, the date of the representation was wrongly typed as 21.03.2018 instead of 31.12.2017.
3. In view of the same, the Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the order dated 11.06.2018 and issue fresh order copy to the petitioner.
01.11.2018 arr Note: Issue order copy on 02.11.2018