Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Narasimman @ Narasimmalu on 24 February, 2022
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
&
C.M.P. No. 3028 of 2022
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry and
Fisheries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services,
DMS Compound, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Regional Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Assistant Director,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District. ..Appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
Vs.
1. T. Narasimman @ Narasimmalu
2. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Office of the Accountant General,
Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 18. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 20.11.2018 in W.P. No.
30243 of 2018.
For Appellants :: Mr.J.C. Durairaj
For Respondents :: Mr.L. Dhamodharan for R1
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan,J. & Mohammed Shaffiq,J.
The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2018 in W.P.
No. 30243 of 2018.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking
issuance of a Writ of Mandmaus directing the appellants herein to count
half of the service rendered by him as Animal Husbandry Assistant on
temporary basis from 09.04.1992 to 15.08.2012 along with the regular
service with effect from 16.08.2012 till 30.06.2018 as qualifying service for
the purpose of granting pensionary benefits and to forward a proposal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
regard thereto for sanction of pension with all consequential monetary
benefits.
3. When the writ petition was taken up, learned counsel on either
side informed the learned Single Judge that the issue involved in the writ
petition was covered by earlier orders passed by this Court, which were
confirmed by the Division Bench and subsequently, by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well. Taking into account the said submission made by both
parties, the writ petition was allowed following the earliers orders of this
Court and necessary orders were directed to be passed within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging
the same, the Department is before this Court in this writ appeal.
4. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellants that in view
of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 158 of 2016
and batch of cases [The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to
Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai V. R.
Kaliymoorthy], the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief
sought in the writ petition, a reading of the impugned order, more so,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
paragraph No.2, would make it clear that there was a concession made by
the appellants as well that the issue involved in the writ petition was
covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 8205 of 2011 dated
19.04.2011 and W.P. no. 13832 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011, which were
confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 27 & 28 of 2012 by common
judgment dated 13.02.2012 and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
State against theose judgment were also dismissed on 10.05.2012.
Paragraph No.2 of the order under challenge is extracted hereunder:
"2. When the matter was taken up for consideratin , the
learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the issue
involved herein is covered by the orders of this Court made in W.P.
No. 8205 of 2011, dated 19.042011 and W.P. No. 13832 of 2011,
dated 29.06.2011, which were confirmed by the Division Bench in
W.A. Nos. 27 & 28 of 2012 by common judgment dated 13.02.2012
and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the State against theose
judgment were also dismissed on 10.05.2012."
In view of the concession made by the appellants before this Court,
we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeal and hence, the writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is also closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
5. Since the time granted by the learned Single Judge has expired,
three months time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(S.V.N.J.) (M.S.Q.J.)
nv 24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
nv
W.A. No. 393 of 2022
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
