BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20/07/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.6038 of 2006 K.Rajamanickam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Public and Preventive Medicine, Teynampet, Chennai 6. 2.The Secretary to Government, Health Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representations dated 16.09.2005, 15.11.2005, 03.01.2006, 05.03.2006 and 27.05.2006, for disbursal of terminal benefits to which he is entitled pursuant to his retirement on 31.07.2005, as Deputy Director of Health Services, Sivakasi and disburse the terminal benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Shanmuganathan ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran. Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. By consent
of both counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents
herein to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 16.09.2005,
15.11.2005, 03.01.2006, 05.03.2006 and 27.05.2006, for disbursal of terminal
benefits.
4. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Deputy
Director of Health Services, Sivakasi, a charge memo was framed against the
petitioner. Pending charges, he retired from service on 31.07.2005. The further
case of the petitioner is that in spite of the respondents having allowed him to
retire from service, no charge has been framed against the petitioner so far. In
the result, terminal benefits of the petitioner has not been disbursed. In these
circumstances, the petitioner made many representations on 16.09.2005,
15.11.2005, 03.01.2006, 05.03.2006 & 27.05.2006, for the purpose of disbursement
of terminal benefits.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner was allowed to retire from service subject to the result of the
disciplinary proceedings. Hence, there is no question of disbursement of
terminal benefits before the disciplinary proceedings is concluded.
6. In view of the above facts, I am of the considered view that the first
respondent should be directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders including the disbursement of
terminal benefits due to the petitioner, for which course, the learned
Additional Government Pleader cannot have any objection. It is also stated that
the charge memo has been issued and the petitioner has also submitted his
explanation.
7. In view of the same, the first respondent is directed to complete the
disciplinary proceedings in respect of the charge memo framed against the
petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to
the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and also pass consequential orders relating to the terminal
benefits, which are the due to the petitioner.
8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
nb