Madras High Court
R.Geetha vs The Director on 28 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.A.No.1279 of 2022
R.Geetha .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director,
Town and Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Assistant Director,
Town and Country Planning,
Thanjavur District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.02.2021 in W.P.No.16504 of 2011.
For Appellant .. Ms.Ezhil
For Respondents .. Ms.P.Raja Rajeswari,
Govt. Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 15.02.2021
recorded on W.P.No.16504 of 2011. This appeal is by the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant/ writ petitioner has
attempted to submit that, the retirement benefits were not calculated
and paid to the appellant as per her entitlement and therefore it was
agitated before learned single Judge and the same is not properly
appreciated by learned single Judge. It is submitted that therefore
this appeal be entertained.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents has
contested this appeal and it is submitted that learned single Judge
has recorded reasons, why, what was asked for by the writ petitioner
was unsustainable. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, we find that
this appeal need not be entertained at all for more than one reason.
Para 4 of the order of learned single Judge reads as follows:
"4.When the case is taken up for
hearing, there is no representation for
the petitioner. However, in view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pendency of the writ petition for the past
nearly a decade, this Court is inclined to
take up the matter and decide the same on
merits, on the basis of the available
records, of course after hearing the
learned Special Government Pleader."
5. Having not presented the case before learned single Judge
and to agitate in writ appeal that there is error would not lie, at the
hands of the appellant. Additionally, we find that the State
Authorities had, by counter submitted before the writ Court that, as
per their calculation, an amount of Rs.4,08,595/- was payable to the
writ petitioner on her retirement which was also attempted to be
paid, which she was not ready to accept, for which oral as well as
written intimations were also given to her and inspite of that, she did
not receive the terminal dues. In this background, learned single
Judge passed the order in the following terms:
"11.In view of the above discussion,
this Court is inclined to dispose of this
writ petition with the following order:
That the respondents are directed to
disburse the D.C.R.G., and other benefits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
payable to the petitioner, if the same has
not been received by the petitioner, as
the same was offered to her in the year
2007-08 itself. This apart, the petitioner
is not entitled for any other relief as
claimed by her in this writ petition. With
the above directions, this writ petition
is disposed of. No costs."
6. We find that the adamance on the part of the writ petitioner
cannot be a factor against her, and therefore the discretion exercised
in her favour, though questioned by the very writ petitioner, need not
be interfered with.
7. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
(P.U.J.) (A.D.J.C.J.)
28.06.2022
Index:No
mmi/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director,
Town and Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Assistant Director,
Town and Country Planning,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY,
J.
and
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1279 of 2022
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
