Madras High CourtWP/31093/2014disposed of

K.Manoharan v. The General Manager

2016-09-08Honourable Mr Justice M. Jaichandren2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:08.09.2016 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.31093 of 2014 K. Manoharan ... Petitioner Vs The General Manager The Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Ltd. No.4, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai-1.

...Respondent

Prayer :

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 8.8.2014, in connection with the disbursement of his terminal benefits, namely, Gratuity, Employee Provident Fund, Staff Security Deposit, Leave Surrender, and pension.

For Petitioner : M/s.R. Perumal Raj For Respondent : Mr.M.R. Raghavan

O R D E R

Heard.

2. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 8.8.2014, seeking the disbursement of his terminal benefits, namely, Gratuity, Employee Provident Fund, Staff Security Deposit, Leave Surrender, and pension.

3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank had placed before this Court a copy of the communication, dated 10.10.2014, said to have been sent to the petitioner, by Registered post, with Acknowledgement Due.

4. It has been further stated in the said communication, dated 10.10.2014, that the claim made by the petitioner, in his representation, dated 8.8.2014, had been considered and rejected, as he was not eligible for Gratuity and Leave Encashment.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. However, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had not received the communication said to have been sent by the respondent Bank, dated 10.10.2014, till date.

6. In view of the above said submission of the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank has furnished a copy of the said communication, to the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner.

7. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to close the writ petition, by giving liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the communication issued by the respondent Bank, dated 10.10.2014, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law.

The writ petition is closed, with the above observations. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rnb 1 cc to Mr.M.R.Raghavan, Advocate, sr.50970 W.P.No.31093 of 2014 nr co kra 05.10.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/