← Library
Madras High CourtREV.APLW/181/2019dismissed

The Chief Record Officer v. C.Manimaran,

2019-09-12Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA 1.The Chief Record Officer, Armoured Corps Records, PIN-900 476,C/o.56 APO.

2. The Commandant, 64 Cavalry, C/o.56 APO.

3. The Commandant, Embarkation Headquarters, PIN-900 432, C/o.56 APO.

4. The Officers Incharge Records, Armoured Corps Records, PIN-900 476, C/o.56 APO.

... Petitioners Vs.

C.Manimaran ... Respondent This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order made in W.P.No.26685 of 2016 dated 2711.2018. For Petitioners : M/s.S.S.Meenakumari, CGSC For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi for M/s.S.Indumathi

O R D E R

1/4

The present Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order made in W.P.No.26685 of 2016 dated 2711.2018 by this Court. 2.

Heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 3.

On the face of the records, this Court is of the view that the Review Application is liable to be rejected because a repeated reading of the affidavit filed in support of the Review Application does not give a single ground, even one single word for filing the present Review Application.

4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has obtained an order of stay against the posting order on 01.08.2016 in the Writ Petition and when this Court passed an order of stay on 1.8.2016, he was also issued with the Movement Order on 08.08.2016, as a result, he was not even permitted to continue his service in Chennai and he has declined to report for duty in Chennai. But the fact remains that the respondent department has been paying the salary to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation on 30.11.2018. Therefore, when the respondent department has paid the salary treating the petitioner as in 2/4

service till his superannuation, there will not be any impediment for the respondent department to pay the monthly pension and the retiral benefits as he has been allowed to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.11.2018.

5.

At this stage, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought time to pay the retiral benefits.

6.

Accepting her request, 8 weeks time from today is granted to the respondent department to disburse the pension and other retiral benefits to the respondent.

7.

With the above direction, the Review Application is dismissed. 12.09.2019 tsi T.RAJA, J.

3/4

tsi 12.09.2019 4/4