Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs N.Subramanian on 23 June, 2017
Bench: Indira Banerjee, T.S.Sivagnanam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.(MD) No.827 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.5691 of 2017
The Managing Director,
Metro Transport Corporation,
Pallavan Illam,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Appellant
-vs-
N.Subramanian ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order
dated 27.11.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.6387 of 2011, on the file of this Court.
!For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
^For Respondent : Mr.S.Visvalingam
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J) This writ appeal by the Metro Transport Corporation is directed against the order, dated 27.11.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.6387 of 2011, which was filed by the respondent challenging the correctness of the order passed by the appellant, dated 06.01.2011, by which the pensionary benefits was denied to the respondent on the ground that he did not possess the required qualifying years of service, namely, 10 years.
2. The learned Single Judge took note of a decision of the Division Bench in the case of the Secretary to Government and others vs. M.Palani in W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2010, dated 06.01.2011, wherein it was held that three months service shall be rounded of as one half year and reckoned as qualifying service and by applying the said decision, the learned Single Judge observed that the period of six months and above can be treated as one complete year and reckoned as qualifying service and if the same is applied to the case of the respondent, who has completed 9 years 8 months and 17 days of service, he is deemed to have possessed the required qualifying service of ten years and eligible for pensionary benefits.
3. Since the learned Single Judge has referred to the Judgment of the Division Bench and granted the relief and the said Judgment having become final, we are not inclined to take a different view in this matter.
4. For the reasons assigned above, the order passed in the writ petition is affirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed..