S.Manuel, v. The Director General Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 26.07.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI W.P.No.18987 of 2018 S.Manuel

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

2. The Addl.Director General of Police, ADGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, DIG Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District

4. The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent Office, Ramanathapuram District .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2018 and consequently to pay the arrears of pay and allowances as per the order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.9793/2013 and as per G.O.Ms.No.152 Home (Police VI) Department, dated 27.02.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Anilan For Respondents : Mrs.R.Janaki, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Mrs.R.Janaki, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, a superannuated

Government servant of Tamil Nadu State Police in this writ petition is that though as superannuation Government servant he is in receipt of pension but his arrear pay has not been released in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 Home (Police VI) Department 27.02.2017. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation on 07.06.2018 but no order has been passed on the same and as such the petitioner came to this Court, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of his representation in accordance with law.

3. Considering such limited prayer of the petitioner, no useful purpose is going to be served by asking the respondents to file reply affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the respondents shall have no objection to consider such representation within a reasonable time in accordance with law.

4. Hence, regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made, even though it cannot be said that the petitioner has made out a case with regard to inaction on the part of the respondents for issuance of writ of mandamus for consideration of his representation, as the representation is dated 07.06.2018, but considering the fact that the petitioner has given a representation ventilating his grievance as aforesaid, the first respondent shall do well to dispose of the representation in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid Government Order, probably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar lok To

1. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

2. The Addl.Director General of Police, ADGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, DIG Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District

4. The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent Office, Ramanathapuram District +1cc to Mr.A.Anilan, Advocate SR.No.50178 W.P.No.18987 of 2018 EV(CO) GN(13/08/2018)