Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2388 (MAD)

D. Munusamy v. District Collector Krishnagiri

2013-07-10

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner was working as a Village Assistant in Krishnagiri Taluk. He worked for more than 30 years. He retired from service on 30.6.1961. It is unfortunate that so far, the retirement benefits are not settled. 2. The pension proposals sent to the Chief Accountant General were returned pointing out certain defects, in the proceedings No.Pen.26/3/3911 dated 11.2.2013. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, the second respondent herein sent a proceeding in O.Mu.494/2013/D dated 27.2.2013 to the third respondent Tahsildar to rectify the defects and send back the proposals again immediately. But, according to the petitioner, the pension proposals were not sent back to the Chief Accountant General for his authorisation. 3. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent to send the petitioner's pension proposal after rectifying the defects as pointed out by the Chief Accountant General, within a stipulated period. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The petitioner retired from service in the year 2001. He was the last grade servant. His pension is not yet settled though he retired 12 years back. Pension proposals were returned by the Chief Accountant General to send back after correcting the defects that was pointed out by him. 6. The second respondent issued letter dated 27.2.2013 to the third respondent to rectify the defects and send back the pension proposals to the Chief Accountant General. But, the third respondent has not taken any action on the letter dated 27.2.2013. Admittedly, as the second respondent is a superior authority, the third respondent has to be comply with his order promptly. But, for the reasons best known to him, the third respondent has not taken action as directed by the second respondent in his letter dated 27.2.2013. 7. In the circumstances, the third respondent is directed to send the petitioner's pension proposals to the appropriate authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Otherwise, the second respondent is directed to take appropriate action for not complying with the direction of this Court. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.