Madras High Court
Vijaya vs The Chief Engineer on 11 December, 2012
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.15917 of 2012 1.Vijaya 2.Suganya ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Nandanam, Chennai-35. 2.The Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Thanjavur. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Command Area Development Programme-I Pattukottai & Taluk, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the retiral benefits payable to D.Subramaniyan, who was working as 'Junior Engineer' under the 3rd respondent treating he is not alive and dead and pass such further orders. !For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Balakrishnan ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Masilamani Government Advocate :ORDER
Mr.K.Masilamani, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3.The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner's husband, who was working as 'Junior Engineer' under the 3rd respondent by treating him, as not alive and dead.
4.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was working as 'Junior Engineer' under the first respondent. The whereabouts of the petitioner's husband is not known to the petitioner from the month of October 2007 onwards, when he left for duty to Pattukottai from Pudukkottai. All the efforts made to search the petitioner's husband went in vain. The 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary action against her husband for his unauthorised absence and framed charges against him through his proceedings, dated 18.01.2012. The petitioner's husband was also placed under suspension and thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed final order not permitting the petitioner's husband to retire from the Government service, through the proceedings, dated 31.05.2012. In-spite of such proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner made representation to the respondents on 25.06.2012 and sought for retirement benefits by treating the petitioner's husband as dead and not alive and also dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her husband. The 2nd respondent sent a reply on 03.07.2012 calling upon the petitioner to come to his office for further hearing. Though the petitioner appeared before him, no further order is passed in the petitioner's representation. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court.
5.The only grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner's husband's whereabouts is not known for more than five years, the respondents without considering the said fact, initiated the disciplinary proceedings and also not considered the petitioner's request for disbursement of retirement benefits. I wonder as to whether the petitioner could claim that her husband is not alive merely because his whereabouts is not known for the past five years. But at the same time how long the disciplinary proceedings can be kept pending is also a question to be gone into by the authorities.
6.In any event, as the only grievance of the petitioner is that her representation is not disposed of so far, I only direct the respondents to consider her representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
er To,
1.The Chief Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Nandanam, Chennai-35.
2.The Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering) Thanjavur.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Command Area Development Programme-I Pattukottai & Taluk, Thanjavur District.
4.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.