Madras High Court
P.Rajendran ... Review vs The Commissioner on 9 July, 2021
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
Rev.Aplc.(MD)Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.235 of 2019
P.Rajendran ... Review Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Corporation of Madruai,
Madurai.
3.The Chief Accounts Officer (General),
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the observation made in
Para No.6 “Considering these facts, the first respondent is entitled to
adjudicate his rights with regard to the computation done by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
appellant Corporation as incorrect and that he is entitled to better
retirement benefits. However, it is an independent cause of action and
we cannot adjudicate the same in this appeal, which has been filed by the
Corporation of Madurai” and in Para No.7 that “ the stand taken by the
appellant Corporation that disbursement has already been made” in order
dated 03.10.2019, passed in W.A(MD)No.995 of 2019, passed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.256 of 2019
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Corporation of Madruai,
Madurai.
3.The Chief Accounts Officer (General),
Corporation of Madurai,
Madurai. ... Review Petitioners/ Appellants
Vs.
P.Rajendran ... Respondent/Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order passed by this Court, in
W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2019, dated 03.10.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murali
For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.The Review Applications have been filed by both the appellants
in Writ Appeal (MD)No.995 of 2019 and the respondent therein.
3.Mr.A.N.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the respondent in
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.256 of 2019 and the petitioner in Rev.Aplc (MD)No.
235 of 2019, submitted that he has given a change of vakalat and also
returned the case bundles to the party and to that effect, a Memo has been
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
4.The said Memo is recorded. We find that till date the respondent
has not made any alternative arrangements.
5.The Review Application in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.235 of 2019 at the
instance of the respondent is not sustainable, as the Review Applicant
seeks to re-argue the matter. Hence, we decline to excise review
jurisdiction. Hence, the Rev.Aplc(MD)No.235 of 2019 is dismissed.
6.So far as the Rev.Aplc(MD)No.256 of 2019 filed by the
Corporation of Madurai, is concerned, in our judgment, dated
03.10.2019, in W.A.(MD)No.995 of 2019, we have made it clear as to
what is the relief the respondent is entitled to.
7.With the above clarification, the Rev.Aplc(MD)No.256 of 2019
stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No (T.S.S.,J.) (R.T.,J.)
Internet:Yes/No 09.07.2021
Ls/akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD).Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
R.THARANI, J.
Ls/akv
Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.235 and 256 of 2019
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
