logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2115 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 5576 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
Parties : Dr. G. Mohanram Versus The Vice Chancellor, University of Madras, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Pushpakaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Ravichander, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 19-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2024 and pay interest calculated on accumulated annual basis at applicable rate on PF amount of Rs.7,12,879/- from 1.11.2012 to till the date of realisation.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2024 and pay interest calculated on accumulated annual basis at applicable rate on PF amount of Rs.7,12,879/- from 01.11.2012 till the date of realisation.

2. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Principal in a constituent college of Madurai Kamaraj University applied for the post of Professor-cum- Director in the Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras and was appointed in the said post on deputation basis for three years which was extended thereafter. Subsequently, he was permanently absorbed by the respondents University of Madras and he lastly worked as Professor, Department of Commerce. He opted for voluntary retirement due to health reasons and by a resolution of the Syndicate Meeting held on 04.03.2011, his request was accepted and he was permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 31.05.2011. However, the said acceptance was not given effect to and the petitioner has not been allowed to retire in view of the enquiry held by the University with respect to some irregularities and he was placed under suspension with effect from 31.10.2012.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has also submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him and requested to drop the charges against him. Subsequently, a resolution was passed to revoke his suspension and disburse the petitioner’s terminal benefits. Pursuant to such revocation of suspension, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance and he was permitted to retire on 31.10.2012. However, even after several representations, his retiral benefits were not paid to him till 2019.

4. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.35240 of 2019, which was disposed of this Court by order dated 19.12.2019 directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh representation, pursuant to which the petitioner received his provident fund dues. However, since no interest was paid on the amount, the petitioner again approached the respondents claiming interest on the PF amount, which was also kept pending. The petitioner approached this Court again in W.P.No.22349 of 2024 towards settlement of his contributory pension amount and interest for the belated payment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 02.08.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider his request.

5. The present writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2024 and pay interest calculated on the PF amount.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2024 on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

 
  CDJLawJournal