Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs R.Panneerselvam on 16 August, 2022
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.13596 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
rep. By its Managing Director,
Chennai – 107. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Panneerselvam
2.G.L.Hariharan
3.N.Rangasamy
4.M.Paul Pandi
5.M.Muthian
6.S.K.Gomathinayagam
7.S.A.Ramaswamy
8.D.Mani
9.J.Raghunathan
10.N.Annamalai
11.P.Mahendran
12.R.Sethuraman
13.S.Perumal
14.N.Gunasekaran
15.R.Sethumadhavan
16.C.Govindasamy
17.P.Pitchaikani
18.J.Sekar
19.T.Sriramaselvan
20.A.Vaikunta Perumal
21.A.Paramasivam
22.V.Palanisami
23.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 03.11.2007 made in W.P.No.11746 of 2014.
For Appellant .. Mr.S.Silambanan,
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Ms.S.Mythreye Chandru,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents .. Ms.M.N.Sumathy
for R1 to R22
Ms.S.Mythreye Chandru,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R23
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
03.11.2017 recorded on W.P. No.11746 of 2014. This appeal is by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board - second respondent in the writ
petition.
2. Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellant and Ms.M.N.Sumathy, learned advocate
for the private respondents/ original writ petitioners.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that,
the writ petitioners are not entitled to the counting of 50% of their
services rendered as daily wagers since their claim was not as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
the policy of the State and therefore the direction given by learned
Single Judge is unsustainable and the same be interfered with. It is
submitted that, this appeal be entertained.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original writ
petitioners has submitted that the writ petitioners are entitled to
what is granted by learned Single Judge and therefore no
interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this appeal
be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that,
after hearing the parties and considering the case, learned Single
Judge has in para : 8 of the order under challenge recorded as
under:-
“8. In this view of the matter, the
respondents are directed to re-consider
the case of the writ petitioners for
counting half of the services rendered by
them on consolidated pay, in accordance
with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1978, and pass appropriate orders
in this regard, within a period of twelve
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order and communicate the same to
the writ petitioners.”
6. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant has
tendered the statement giving details of the concerned workmen,
which also included the case of the present writ petitioners.
7. We find that the exercise of discretion by learned Single
Judge which culminated in the final direction, as noted above, can
not be said to be an error which may call for any interference in
exercise of powers under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
8. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U.,J.) (V.B.S.,J.)
16.08.2022
Index:No
mmi/4
To
The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1857 of 2022
16.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
