Madras High CourtWP(MD)/20936/2014dismissed as infructuous

Anthony Cruz, S/O Arockiyam, v. The General Manager,

2021-08-18Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

W.P.(MD).No.20936 of 2014 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR W.P.(MD).No.20936 of 2014 Anthony Cruz .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Ex-servicemen's Corporation Limited(Texco) Major Parameswaran Memorial Building, 2, West Mada Street, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Officer, 37, Rayapetta High Court, Chennai-600 014.

3.Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Shree Complex, D' Block, No.18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirappalli.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction pension to the petitioner based on his application and representations dated 18.12.2012, 16.10.2013, 28.10.2013 and 18.04.2014.

For Petitioner: Mr.T.M.Madasamy For R2 & R3 : Mr.V.J.Kumaravel For R1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction pension to the petitioner, based on his representation dated 18.12.2012 and subsequent representations.

2.The petitioner joined as Security in the first respondent and retired from the job on 01.03.2010 on attaining superannuation. Though the accumulation of the petitioner's provident fund were settled, it is the grievance of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD).No.20936 of 2014 that his pension was not sanctioned, as per Rules. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. 3.The second and third respondents had filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the pension arrears due to the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2010 was calculated and released in the month of April 2015 itself. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also acknowledged the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent and submitted that the writ petition may be closed.

4.Since the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous, after recording the statements. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Ns Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

+1 CC to M/s.V.J.KUMARAVEL, Advocate (SR-26721[F] dated 19/08/2021) W.P.(MD).No.20936 of 2014 18.08.2021 ES(CO) SB(02.09.2021) 2P 2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2