1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:26.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Appeal (MD)No.139 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Home,Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chennai. 3.The Principal Accountant General, Thenampet, Chennai. ... Appellants/ Respondents vs. G.Sethuraj ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.11.2008, made in W.P.(MD) No.8630 of 2008. WP(MD)No. 8630 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, diecting the respondents to sanction the pension to the petitioner and consequently direct the responents to settle the benefits which the petitioner is entitled to with arrears along with interest. For Appellants ... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate. For Respondent ... Mr.T.Murugesan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J) This writ appeal has been filed against the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the representation given by the respondent/writ petitioner. It is evident that the time limit fixed by the learned Single Judge not complied with by the appellants. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition. Now, this writ appeal has been filed. 2.Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner made a claim for pension and he relied on two judgments to support his case. The learned Single Judge directed the appellants/respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.05.2008 in the judgment in 2008(3) MLJ 241 - D.Padmini vs. Registrar General, High Court. The respondent/writ petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the representation, along with the copy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the order of the learned single Judge and a xerox copy of the judgment referred to above. 3.It is only a direction to consider the representation. No positive mandamus was issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are unable to understand why this writ appeal has been filed. Now, the learned Government Advocate requests that since the time given by the learned Single Judge has expired, eight weeks time may be given. 4.The writ appeal is disposed of giving eight weeks time to the appellants to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CRL. SIDE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR gb To: 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Home, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chennai. 3.The Principal Accountant General, Thenampet, Chennai. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 7519: DM;2010:MARCH:15: Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.139/2010 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 Dated:26.02.2010 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/