Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs /7 on 10 June, 2021
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2021
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.4649 to 4651 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Tahsildar,
Kadayanallur Taluk Office,
Tirunelveli District. ...Appellants in W.A(MD).No.1039
to 1041 of 2021
Vs.
1.A.Vellasamy ...R1 in W.A(MD).No.1039 of 2021
2.A.Subramanian ...R1 in W.A(MD).No.1040 of 2021
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
3.A.Irulappan ...R1 in W.A(MD).No.1041 of 2021
4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Pension,
No.391, Anna Salai,
Chennai. ...R2 in all Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent to set aside the order dated 10.02.2020 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.
25190 of 2018, 2321 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
In all appeals
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickkam,
Government Counsel
For R1 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen
COMMONJUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Government counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mahideen, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
2. In the light of the orders we propose to pass in this writ petition,
notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.
3. With the consent on either side, these writ appeals are taken up
for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The first respondent in these appeals filed writ petitions praying
for a direction upon the appellants to revise Pension Proposal of the 1st
respondent herein by calculating half of the services put in by them as
Village Assistant from different dates.
5. The learned Single Judge has issued a positive direction to
consider the representation and take into consideration 50% of the
service. Identical orders were tested for its correctness in the appeal filed
by the Government in W.A.(MD).Nos.830 to 832 of 2021. The matters
were heard by us and by common judgment dated 16.04.2021, the
appeals were partly allowed and the directions issued were modified. The
operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
5.Learned Counsel for the respondents / writ
petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners had come
before this Court earlier in a batch of cases in W.P.
(MD)No.23208 of 2018 etc., batch, which was disposed
of by a common order dated 31.01.2019, directing the
matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, to
be placed before the larger Bench on the ground that
there were conflicting views by the learned Single Bench.
Against the said judgment, W.A.(MD)No.370 of 2019,
was filed and a judgment was passed on 22.10.2019,
wherein directions were given to pass orders counting
the 50% of the services rendered by the respective
appellants as Thalaiyari, for the relevant period, for the
purpose of calculating pension. Therefore, the learned
Single Bench in the impugned order directed the
appellants to consider the representations on those lines.
However, there is an impediment as of now for the
Government to take a decision in the matter on account
of another judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, to
which one of us was a party [S.ANANTHI, J.] in W.A.
(MD)No.1629 of 2018 etc., batch dated 26.02.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
6. It is the submission of the learned Special
Government Pleader for the appellants that the
arguments now placed by Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen,
learned Counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners
was also taken note of by the recent Division Bench
judgment in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
E.Balachandran, in W.A.(MD)No.1629 of2018 etc.,
batch, and the appeals filed by the Government has been
allowed. As against the judgment dated 26.02.2021, in
the case of E.Balachandran [referred supra], as on date,
it appears that no appeal has been filed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7.In the light of the above, we modify the direction
issued by the learned Single Bench by directing the
appellants to take a decision in accordance with law,
taking note of the legal position pointed out.
8.Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are partly
allowed. However,there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
6. Thus, following the above decision, the Writ Appeals are partly
allowed and the positive direction issued by the learned Single Bench is
set aside. The appellants are directed to take a decision on the first
respondent in these writ appeals/writ petitioners' representation in
accordance with law, by taking note of the earlier judgment. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
10.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb/tta
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/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ssb/tta
To
The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Pension,
No.391, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
Order made in
W.A.(MD).Nos.1039 to 1041 of 2021
Dated:
10.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
