Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22674/2016disposed of

G.Sankaran, v. The Managing Director

2016-11-25Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD)No.22674 of 2016 G.Sankaran : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Road, Chennai - 2.

2.The Branch Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, 1, Tolgate, Trichy - 20.

: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner's retirement benefits (Computer No.6122) by considering his representation and notice dated 01.12.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner's retirement benefits (Computer No.6122) by considering his representations and notice dated 01.12.2015.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, who took notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined as Conductor in the State Express Transport Corporation on 20.09.1988 and he resigned his job on 04.06.2012. Thereafter, he had joined in the Government School as per the communication dated 26.12.2011 of the Joint Director of School Education. At that time, he requested the respondents to disburse his retirement benefits. The first respondent issued a communication on 06.10.2012, directing to pay Rs.3,300/- towards OD pay and Rs.13,895/- towards excess leave of 17.5 days. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation and application under RTI Act on 16.11.

2012, for which, the first respondent once again sent a communication dated 22.11.2012, claiming the same amount. The reasons stated in both the communications are contrary to one another. Therefore, the petitioner sent representations to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

respondents on 07.09.2015, 07.10.2015 and 24.10.2015, seeking to disburse his retirement benefits. Since, no steps were taken, the petitioner sent a a legal notice dated 01.12.2015 to the respondents. As there is no response, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is agreeable for the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 07.09.2015, 07.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 and to pass orders.

5.Recording the above submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 07.09.2015, 07.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar +1 cc to MR.N.Mohan, ADVOCATE, SR NO:72587 +1 cc to MR.K.SATHYA SINGH, ADVOCATE, SR NO:73154 SMN SVA/MR/SAR2/02.03.2017/2P/3C ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.22674 of 2016 25.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/