Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs L.Arumugasamy .. 1St on 29 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.1873 & 1875 of 2022
W.A(MD)No.192 of 2022
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Forest and Environment (FR-2) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Buildings,
Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Forest Range Officer,
Upperkothaiyar Forest Range,
Upperkodaiyar.
4. The Deputy Director / Wildlife Warden,
Kalakkad Sanctuary, Kalakkad,
Tirunelveli. .. Appellants/
Respondents 1 to 4
Vs
1. L.Arumugasamy .. 1st Respondent/
Writ Petitioner
2. The Principal Account General Officer,
Accountant General Office,
Chennai. .. 2nd Respondent/
5th Respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 22.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD) No. 9466 of 2019.
W.A(MD)No.193 of 2022
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Forest and Environment (FR-2) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Buildings,
Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Forest Range Officer,
Thirukkurungudi Forest Range,
Thirukkurungudi.
4. The Deputy Director / Wildlife Warden,
Kalakkad Sanctuary, Kalakkad,
Tirunelveli. .. Appellants/
Respondents 1 to 4
Vs
1. M.Sanmugasundaram .. 1st Respondent/
Writ Petitioner
2. The Principal Account General Officer,
Accountant General Office,
Chennai. .. 2nd Respondent/
5th Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 22.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD) No. 9469 of 2019.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
(in both appeals)
For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanan for R1
Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R2
(in both appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in these writ appeals is made to the common order
dated 22 April 2019 recorded on W.P(MD) Nos.9466 and 9469 of 2019.
This appeal is by the respondent – State Authorities. A poor workman who
has retired is the respondent in this appeal.
2. Learned Single Judge has, on the basis of the pleadings and the
law holding the field granted certain reliefs as reflected para : 5 and 6,
which reads as under:
“5. However, a Division Bench of this Court has
considered a similar question in the Government of Tamil
Nadu & Others Vs. K.Sakthivel & Another (W.A.No.51 of 2018
and etc., batch cases), wherein, the Division Bench of this
Court has held that a similarly placed person like the present
petitioners, would be entitled to addition of 50% of the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
services rendered as a Plot Watchers on daily wage basis and
had opined that the fixation of cut off date has no rationale.
6. In view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are directed to
count 50% of the services of the petitioners rendered as Plot
Watchers on temporary basis for the above stated period and
calculate their pensions and pay the same within a period of
12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. This Court had asked for certain details from the State vide
order dated 07.03.2022 which is attempted to be furnished to the Court.
During the course of hearing, an attempt was made that in view of the
decision of the larger Bench of this Court recorded on W.A. No.158 of
2016 and cognate appeals, the order of the Division Bench of this Court,
which was guiding factor before learned Single Judge may be said to be
not holding the field.
4. We find that, the date of decision of learned Single Judge in
this case is 22.04.2019 and the same can not be said to be erroneous, by
not taking into account the order of larger Bench which was not even
passed at all. For this reason, we find that, the same can not be said to be
an error which may be gone into in this intra-court appeal. We further find
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
that, ultimately a poor workman is granted some relief by learned Single
Judge in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
This is an additional factor, why we refrain from interfering in the order of
learned Single Judge, with the clarification that this may not be treated as
a precedent.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted
that, as on date, it is the decision of the Full Bench which can be said to
be holding the field. We find that in the peculiar facts of this case, which
is to be decided more by keeping in view the facts, the decision of learned
Single Judge need not be interfered with.
6. In view of the above reasons, these writ appeals are
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
would not survive.
[P.U., J] [R.V., J]
29.03.2022
Index : No
sj/27
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
sj
W.A(MD)Nos.192 and 193 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
