N.Mohammed Najeeb v. Director Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN N.Mohammed Najeeb ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Director of Rural Development & Panchayatraj, Chennai 600 015 2.District Collector, Villupuram District.

3.District Collector, Kallakurichi District ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the petitioner's terminal and retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.06.2017 together with compounding interest @ 12% and encashment of leave salary, Provident Fund, Special Provident fund, within a time frame as deem fit and proper by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.Kishore Kumar R For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the petitioner's terminal and retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.06.2017 together with compounding interest at 12% and encashment of leave salary, Provident Fund, Special Provident fund, within a time frame as deem fit and proper by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.05.2017 without prejudice to the charge memo issued against him. Subsequently, at the intervention of this Court, there was a direction to the respondents to pass a final order in the Disciplinary Proceedings. After lapse of 8 years, according to the petitioner, among two disciplinary proceedings, one has been dropped and in the another disciplinary proceedings, a punishment of censure was ordered.

3. The learned counsel would further submits that inspite of closing of 2/6

all the Disciplinary Proceedings, still the respondents have not disbursed his pension. It is the further submission of the petitioner that he has given a representation on 21.11.2024 and such representation is still pending with the respondents.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that since the punishment of censure imposed against the petitioner, the question of regularisation of the suspension period as a duty does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. However, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would fairly admit about the receipt of the representation and pendency of the same.

5. In view of the above disputed facts, and due to the pendency of representation dated 21.11.2024, instead of going into the merits of the matter, this Court would like to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024 on it's own merits and pass order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/6

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 04.06.2025 Index : Yes Speaking order dm 4/6

To 1.Director of Rural Development & Panchayatraj, Chennai 600 015 2.District Collector, Villupuram District.

3.District Collector, Kallakurichi District 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dm 04.06.2025 6/6