1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :: 15.03.2011 CORAM :: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.1091 of 2011 R. Velpandian, S/o. M. Ramalingam, 5/306, Gokulam Street, Athikulam, K. Pudur, Madurai - 7. ...... Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Secretariat, Omanthurar Estate, Chennai. 2. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. .......Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to fix the pension and thereby release the full pension with effect from 01.03.2009 and other retirement benefits with interest within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner :: Mr. D. Muruganantham For Respondents :: Mr. N. Elango Government Advocate O R D E R The present writ petition is laid by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to fix his pension and thereby release the full pension with effect from 01.03.2009 and other retirement benefits with interest within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. The short factual matrix of the case is set out hereunder:- The petitioner joined as a Police Constable Grade I in the year 1972. Thereafter, gradually he was promoted and lastly as Inspector of Police in the year 2004. On 26.02.2009, just two days prior to the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2009, the fourth respondent issued a Charge Memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955. He was not allowed to retire from service. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10246 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 challenging the Charge Memo issued to him. This Court, by an order dated 09.08.2010 allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.02.2009. In spite of the same, the retirement benefits were not granted and he was not paid full pension. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The above facts would reveal that in spite of quashing the Charge Memo dated 26.02.2009 by this Court, the respondents have not settled the retirement benefits to the petitioner and that he has not been paid full pension. It is not the case of the respondents also that an Appeal was preferred against the order of this Court dated 09.08.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.10246 of 2010. In such circumstances, the respondents are bound to pay the entire terminal benefits to the petitioner and also to pay the full pension to the petitioner. 4. Taking into consideration the said aspect, I am inclined to direct the third respondent to settle the entire retirement benefits to the petitioner and also pay the full pension to the petitioner. The said exercise has to be carried out by the third respondent within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Secretariat, Omanthurar Estate, Chennai. 2. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.6707 +1CC TO M/S.D.MURUGANANTHAM, ADVOCATE SR.6454 Dpn SR : 01.04.2011 : 2p/7c W.P.(MD)No.1091 of 2011 15.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/