Madras High CourtWP(MD)/4157/2018disposed of

M.S.Mani, v. The Vice-Chancellor,

2019-03-20Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :20.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN WP(MD)No.4157 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.4305 of 2018 M.S.Mani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Vice Chancellor, 2.The Registrar, Madurai- 21 3.The Assistant Examiner, Local Fund Audit, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant terminal benefits and pension by revising the same by treating the pre-interruption period of 8 years and 28 days in the past service of the petitioner from 21.01.1982 to 15.03.1990 as regular service, based on the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.Esst/Admn/1/95, dated 13.10.1995 and by considering the petitioner's representations dated 25.07.2013, 04.10.2016, 11.01.2017, 17.05.2017, 04.10.2017 and 07.12.2017 and many other representations directly given to the 2nd respondent, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan, Nos. 1 and 3 Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar No.2 for M/s.Issac Chambers

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to grant terminal and pensionary benefits, taking into

account the services rendered by the petitioner from 21.01.1982 to 15.03.1990, as regular service, based on the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.Esst/Admn/1/95, dated 13.10.1995 and by considering the petitioner's representations made on various occasions.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings in No.Esst/Admn/1/95, dated 13.10.1995 issued by the 2nd respondent has not been considered by the 3rd respondent, despite several representations made by the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.The learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that already there was a direction to the 3rd respondent to look into the proceedings dated 13.10.1995 and hence, the respondent would consider the claim of the petitioner pass appropriate orders in line with the same.

4.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representations, on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.10.1995 cited supra and pass necessary orders, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) dsk To 1.The Vice Chancellor, 2.The Registrar, Madurai- 21

3.The Assistant Examiner, Local Fund Audit, +1 CC to M/s.K.PRABHAKAR, Advocate ( SR-55522[F] dated 20/03/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.ISAAC CHAMBERS, Advocate ( SR-55561[F] dated 21/03/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-55986[F] dated 22/03/2019 ) ORDER MADE IN WP(MD)No.4157 of 2018 20.03.2019 DS/ /SAR- (29.04.2019) 3P 7C