← Library
Madras High CourtWP/11615/2015disposed of

T.Millika, W/O Late S.Thirug- v. The Director Of Local Fund

2017-08-08Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.08.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Writ Petition No. 11615 of 2015 T.Mallika ... Petitioner Vs.

The Director of Local Fund Audit, IV Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai - 108. ...

Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's husband representation dated 04.07.2011 according to law consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount with held by the respondent and re-fix the portion along with interest.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondent : Mr.M.Perumal Government Advocate

O R D E R

The writ petition is filed for issuance of a direction, to direct the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the husband of the writ petitioner on 4th July 2011.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the husband of the writ petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector in Myladuthurai Municipality and subsequently, retired. He retired on 31st June 2002 on attainment of superannuation and the husband of the writ petitioner died on 13th March 2015 and accordingly, the writ petitioner is entitled for the Family Pension benefits. In this regard a representation was submitted by the late husband of the writ petitioner on 4th July 2011 and even during the life time of the husband of the writ petitioner the claim regarding the pensionary benefits were not settled. The representation submitted by the husband of the writ petitioner was kept pending for long period and no decision was taken during the life time of the husband of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

present writ petition to consider the representation filed by her husband on 4th July 2011.

3. Without going into merits and demerits of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the husband of the writ petitioner on 4th July 2011 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with rules, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. It is needless to mention that the writ petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of the representation along with the order passed by this Court in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar maya To

1. The Director of Local Fund Audit, IV Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai - 108.

+1 CC to Mr.A.R. Nixon, advocate sr 57386.

+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 57508.

W.P.No.11615 of 2015 PVS(CO) sp(14/09/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/