1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.4722 of 2011 S. Vedhamuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu 261 Anna Salai Chennai 18. 2. The Director General of Police Chennai. 3. The District Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.F1/41853/2010 dated 27/10/2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to give pension to the petitioner for the services rendered by him from the year 1951 to 1973 in the second and third respondents Department. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.N.Ilango, GA - - - - - O R D E R By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Mr.N.Ilango, Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, challenging the impugned order of the third respondent dated 27/10/2010, in and by which, the request of the petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that the pension shall not be given to the Government employee, who has resigned his job. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The case of the petitioner is that, he was worked as Constable in the second and third respondent Police Department from 1951 to 1973. He has received 22 awards from the Tamil Nadu Government for his honest and efficient discharging of his duties as Police Constable. He was blessed with five children. Since his wife is a mentally retarded person and in order to bring up the children, he has resigned his job in the year 1973 due to his destiny. The petitioner was all along under the impression that the second and third respondents had recommended the case of the petitioner to the first respondent for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 4/8/2010 to the Chief Minister and the same was forwarded to the third respondent. The third respondent by the impugned order dated 27/10/2010, rejected his request. The petitioner therefore, was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 5. I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity for the following reason. (i). The petitioner resigned the job in the year 1973 and so far, the petitioner has not taken any steps to get pension. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2011. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone. (ii). The petitioner has resigned the job in the year 1973. The person who has resigned the job is not entitled for any pension. 6. Taking such view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the third respondent dated 27/10/2010. 7. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu 261 Anna Salai, Chennai 18. 2. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 3.The District Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District +One CC to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.15092 mvs rl/5c – 24.5.2011 W.P.(MD)No.4722 of 2011 25/4/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/