Madras High Court
M.Jayabalan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By ... on 8 February, 2022
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 2825 of 2021
M.Jayabalan ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. Chief Engineer, (Buildings),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai.
3. Executive Engineer, (Buildings),
Public Works Department,
Villupuram. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order
of the learned Judge in W.P.No.25689 of 2014 dated 02.12.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Anandakumar
Government Advocate
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 02.12.2020 made in W.P.No.25689 of 2014, wherein the Writ
Petition was dismissed on the ground that there is delay on the part of the Writ
Petitioner, in questioning the impugned order dated 19.01.2011.
2. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, the
Appellant/Writ Petitioner was initially appointed as Work Assistant in the Office of the
Co-operative Buildings, Construction Sub Division, Cuddalore through Cuddalore
District Employment Exchange and joined duty on 09.04.1975 and his services were
regularised with effect from 01.01.1981. He further submitted that vide
G.O.Ms.No.184 Co-Op Food and Consumer Production Department dated 16.05.2003,
a Co-operative Society Construction Wing has been wound up with effect from
31.08.2003 A.N, due to which, as per G.O.Ms.No.295 dated 13.11.2003, the writ
petitioner was absorbed in the Public Works Department, and posted as Work Inspector
Gr-III which carries similar scale of pay like that of the post of Work Assistant in the
Co-op Construction Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel of the Appellant that though
the Appellant/Writ Petitioner sought for quashing of the Letter dated 19.01.2021, the
main grievance of the Writ Petitioner was that he was deprived the revised pension,
applicable to him, in the past, in which he was absorbed. He further submitted that
though the impugned order proceeds on the basis that Writ Petitioner requested for
promotion, the relief sought for was the extension of benefits of pension, he should be
extended the benefits of pension, but the learned Single Judge deprived the pensionary
benefits on the ground of laches.
4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents
contended that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner joined the services in the year 1975 and
due to winding up of the Cooperative Society Construction wing with effect from
31.08.2003, he was absorbed in the post of Work Inspector Grade III having similar pay
scale in the post of Work Assistant in the Co-operative Construction Department, vide
order dated 13.11.2003. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly
rejected the prayer sought for by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and the same does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
5. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on records.
6. It is seen that the prayer in the Writ Petition has been inartistically worded as
the main sum and substance of the issue on hand is that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
sought for the pensionary benefits applicable to the post of Work Inspector Grade III
having similar pay scale like that of the post of work Assistant in the Cooperative
Society. Once the Respondents agree that the pay scale applicable to Work Inspector
Grade III is same as that of Work Assistant in the Cooperative Department, the
Respondents cannot be permitted to deny/deprive the pensionary benefits. However in
the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 8 SCC 648, the pensionary benefits can be
restricted with effect from 2011.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge dated
02.12.2020 made in W.P.No.25689 of 2014 does not hold good. The Respondents are
directed to pay the pensionary benefits due to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner upto 2010
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
However, it is made clear that the Appellant is not entitled for any pensionary benefits
on and after 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
9. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed with the above modification. No
costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [M.S.Q., J]
08.02.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2825 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.,
arr
To:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. Chief Engineer, (Buildings)
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai.
3. Executive Engineer, (Buildings),
Public Works Department,
Villupuram.
W.A.No. 2825 of 2021
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
