Skip to content


S. Balasubramanian Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P(MD) No. 6953 of 2016
Judge
AppellantS. Balasubramanian
RespondentThe Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George and Others
Excerpt:
.....consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the gratuity, provident fund, special provident fund, encashment of leave surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner.) 1. this writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the gratuity, provident fund, special provident fund, encashment of leave surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned special government pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. the case of the petitioner is that he retired from the service as assistant elementary educational officer, vasudevanallur on attaining the age of superannuation; that the 2nd respondent.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the Gratuity, Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Leave Surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner.)

1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the Gratuity, Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Leave Surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he retired from the service as Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur on attaining the age of superannuation; that the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 29.05.2012 directed the 4th respondent to relieve the petitioner and accordingly, he was relieved from the service on 31.05.2012 and the proposal for his terminal benefits was also sent to the Accountant General and Other authorities; though the Accountant General has sanctioned pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension, the amount towards gratuity and commuted value of pension has not been disbursed to him; that no charge memo is pending against him and there is no due payable to the Government, yet his provident fund, special provident fund and leave salary have not yet been sanctioned by the respondents 2 to 4; that the petitioner sent several representations, the last one of which was on 12.02.2016 and none of the representations evoked any response from the respondents; that as the petitioner is in need of money for the treatment of his wife, aged parents and also for conducting the marriage of his children, finding no other alternative, he has approached this Court with the relief stated supra.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents will disburse the retiral benefits due to the petitioner, if there is no impediment for the respondents to release the same, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2016, within a reasonable time.

5. Perusal of the affidavit would go to show that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation and no charge memo was pending against the petitioner as on the date of his retirement. Pension and the retiral benefits are the only source of livelihood for the retired person to lead his retirement life peacefully and it is not known as to why those benefits were not extended to the petitioner so far and there is also no concrete reason forthcoming on the side of the respondents as to the reason for non-disbursement of the amount to the petitioner.

6. Under such circumstances, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2016 and to pass suitable orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the observation made hereinabove.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //