A. Innasimuthu vs The Accountant General and Pension Verification Officer (A and E), The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Tahsildar

Honourable Mr. Justice T. Raja

The petitioner A. Innasimuthu has presented a present Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay his pension on the basis of the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent dated 06.08.2009 in R.C.No.1638/2008.

Heard Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was retired from service in the year 2008. But after his retirement, though the Pension papers were sent by the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and in turn, he forwarded the proposal to the first respondent, Accountant General and Pension Verification Officer (A&E), Thenampet, the first respondent till date has not sanctioned the pension. As a result, the petitioner has been put to great prejudice and severe mental agony. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that though the petitioner papers were received for payment of pension from the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, the Regional Authority for forwarding the pension papers is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District. This is to avoid the other malpractices in obtaining the pensionary benefits. But in the present case, the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar is not the competent authority to forward the papers, as a result, they have received the pension papers in the month of August 2009 but the said papers were already returned in the year 2009 itself to send through proper channel, therefore, he pleaded that if the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai District returns the pension papers within a month, the same would be processed and proper order for payment of pension would be passed soon.

Recording the said statement, this Court is of the view that since the fourth respondent has wrongly sent the intimation signed by the second respondent stating that the petitioner has already been retired from service in the year 2008 and is suffering without any monthly pension, the third and fourth respondents are directed to jointly carry out the said exercise and ensure that the third respondent shall send the papers immediately to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned counsel for the first respondent would further submits that after receipt of the pension papers, the first respondent shall release the pension within a period of four weeks thereafter, this statement is also recorded.

With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.