A.Satharkhan vs The Board Of Directors And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 7542 Mad

Madras High Court

A.Satharkhan vs The Board Of Directors And ... on 5 April, 2024

                                                                               W.A(MD)No.584 of 2024

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 05.04.2024

                                                        CORAM :

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR
                                                and
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                                  W.A(MD)No.584 of 2024

                A.Satharkhan                                                     ... Appellant

                                                           vs.

                1. The Board of Directors and Administrative Ministry,
                Rep by its Managing Director,
                BHEL Corporate Office,
                BHEL House, Siri Fort,
                New Delhi - 110 049.

                2. The General Manager (Hr – Policy I, NIC and TMX),
                BHEL Corporate Office,
                BHEL House, Siri Fort,
                New Delhi - 110 049.

                3. The General Manager,
                Human Resource Management (HRM)
                24 Building, Main Office, BHEL,
                Tiruchirappalli - 620014.                                        ... Respondents

                          Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
                order dated 10.02.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.6010 of 2018.


                                  For Appellant      : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.1 of 5
                                                                                 W.A(MD)No.584 of 2024

                                                      JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J.)

This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the

Writ Court, dated 10.02.2023, made in W.P(MD)No.6010 of 2018.

2. The present appellant is the petitioner before the Writ Court who

was the employee of the respondent BHEL, who had resigned his job on

medical reasons on 24.10.2016. Before which, a scheme had been introduced

for providing pension to the employees, where Clause 4.8 makes it clear that

severance of service by the employee on account of resignation, termination,

compulsory retirement as a penalty, dismissal/removal because of disciplinary

proceedings, will not be eligible under the scheme.

3. Knowing well that there has been a scheme, where, a clause like

the one, has already been there, still, he had tendered the resignation on

24.10.2016, which was accepted by the employer.

4. Thereafter, after sometime, he had chosen to challenge the very

Clause 4.8 of the scheme itself.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. For making such a challenge, no plausible reason had been given.

If any scheme provided by the employer is challenged, it normally would be

challenged on the ground of discrimination or want of competency or in

violation of the statute already been in the governance of the service conditions

of the employees of the organization concerned.

6. None of such reasons had been adduced by the

petitioner/appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge who heard the writ petition,

having considered the same, has rejected the said writ petition through the

impugned order dated 10.02.2023.

7. We have gone through the impugned order and we have heard

Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

8. Learned counsel though submitted that, the appellant/petitioner did

not know what was the qualifying service for becoming eligible to get the

pension that, he came to know only after sometime as per the said scheme and

since Clause 4.8 is detrimental to his prospects to get pension, he had chosen to

challenge the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. The said reasoning may not be justifiable for having a successful

challenge against the impugned provision in the said scheme. Therefore, the

said reason given even now by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

is not appealing to this court warranting interference of the order passed by the

Writ Court, which is impugned herein.

10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere

with the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Appeal fails. Accordingly, it is

dismissed. No costs.

                                                       (R.S.K., J.)         (G.A.M., J.)
                Index                   : Yes / No               05.04.2024
                Neutral Citation        : Yes / No
                bala




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                                   R.SURESHKUMAR, J.
                                               and
                                  G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

                                                      bala









                                               05.04.2024


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis