High Court imposes cost on Karur DEO
For failure to abide by its order
15/08/2019, STAFF REPORTER,MADURAI
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the District Educational Officer, Karur, for failing to abide by its order.
Justice D. Krishnakumar imposed the cost for failing to file a counter affidavit or appear before the court. The HC Bench was hearing a petition filed by K. Balasubramanian, a retired school headmaster of Pasupathipalayam.
The petitioner said that when he retired in 2018 after 32 years in service, certain benefits, like encashment of earned leave, were not disbursed to him.
He alleged that the District Educational Officer, had demanded bribe to release the benefits and sought a direction to the official to disburse the benefits.
The court had directed the official to file a counter affidavit, but he did not. He was then asked to appear before the court to offer an explanation on August 14. With the official failing to appear as per its order, the court imposed a cost on him.
The official was asked to appear before the court during the next hearing, which was adjourned by a week.
For failure to abide by its order
15/08/2019, STAFF REPORTER,MADURAI
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the District Educational Officer, Karur, for failing to abide by its order.
Justice D. Krishnakumar imposed the cost for failing to file a counter affidavit or appear before the court. The HC Bench was hearing a petition filed by K. Balasubramanian, a retired school headmaster of Pasupathipalayam.
The petitioner said that when he retired in 2018 after 32 years in service, certain benefits, like encashment of earned leave, were not disbursed to him.
He alleged that the District Educational Officer, had demanded bribe to release the benefits and sought a direction to the official to disburse the benefits.
The court had directed the official to file a counter affidavit, but he did not. He was then asked to appear before the court to offer an explanation on August 14. With the official failing to appear as per its order, the court imposed a cost on him.
The official was asked to appear before the court during the next hearing, which was adjourned by a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment