1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD)No.9 of 2011 K.Chellamuthu District Rehabilitation Officer (Retired) 614/9 Thendral Nagar Oddanchatram,Dindigul District. .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government Tamilnadu Differently Abled Welfare Department, Chepauk-9. 2.The State Commissioner for the Disabled 15/1 Model School Road Thousand Lights Chennai-6. .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2010 in the light of the G.O.(Ms) No.56 welfare of Differently Abled Persons (D.A.P.1(1)) Department dated 27.07.2010 and to extend the service and monetary benefits from 06.05.1996. For petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan For respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.S.Govindan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader, for the respondents. 3. This Petition has been filed for a limited direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2010 in the light of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.56 Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (D.A.P1(1)) Department dated 27.07.2010 and to extend the service and monetary benefits from 06.05.1996. 4. According to the petitioner, he was in service of the second respondent as Junior Rehabilitation Officer from 26.07.1982 and retired on 31.05.2007. After served in the department for 11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 years, he claims that there was a delay in sanctioning the service benefits and by that time, an adhoc rules in G.O.Ms.No.56, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (D.A.P1(1)) Department, dated 27.07.2010 was framed in respect of the petitioner cadre for getting the benefit of promotion and therefore, he made a representation on 10.12.2010. Pending consideration of the same, he moved this Court for the above direction. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader at the outset submits that the representation was made only on 10.12.2010 and not even a reasonable time has been given to the respondent for considering it. Therefore, he submits that a reasonable time limit may be granted to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 6. Considering the above circumstances and also taking into account the limited relief sought for by the petitioner to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.12.2010, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.12.2010, in accordance with law and on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government Tamilnadu Differently Abled Welfare Department, Chepauk-9. 2.The State Commissioner for the Disabled 15/1 Model School Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-6. +1cc to Mr.S.Govindan, Advocate, Sr.No.187 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 293 W.P.(MD)No.9 of 2011 RR SMA/19.01.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/