Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BATTU DEVANAND
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 25.02.2025 issued by 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025the first respondent before the appropriate forum, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 12.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDW.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025 T.Shanmuga Chidambara Vadivu @ Raji... PetitionerVs.
The Principal Accountant General A & E Tamilnadu, No.361, Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai – 625 001.
The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2024 and sanction and pay the full family pension to the petitioner through the third respondent within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.DharaniFor R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government PleaderFor R1: Mr.P.Gunasekaran1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025
O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2024 and sanction and pay the full family pension to her through the third respondent within a stipulated time.2. During the course of hearing, Mr.Gunassekaran, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the request of the petitioner for payment of 100% full family pension was rejected. He would further submit that the petitioner is eligible to continue to pay 50% of the family pension, which is already she is getting. The learned Standing Counsel also placed a copy of the proceedings dated 25.02.2025, wherein the request of the petitioner was rejected stating the reasons. The said copy is placed on record.3. In view of the fact that the request of the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 25.02.2025, in my considered view, no further order is required in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is closed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 25.02.2025 issued by 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025the first respondent before the appropriate forum, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. 12.03.2025NCC:yes/noIndex:yes/noInternet:yes/noCMTo:1. The Principal Accountant General A & E Tamilnadu, No.361, Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai – 625 001.3.The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 0533/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4671 of 2025BATTU DEVANAND , J. CMW.P.(MD)No.4671 of 202512.03.20254/4
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.