Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Madras High Court

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Rajendran on 24 June, 2016

Author: M.V.Muralidaran

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh, M.V.Muralidaran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.6.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

Writ Appeal No.612 of 2016

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
    rep. by its Secretary to Government
    Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department
    Fort St. George
    Chennai 9.

2. The Principal
    Secretary to Government
    Finance Department.

3. The Commissioner of Rural Development
    Panagal Building
    Saidapet,  Chennai 15.

4. The District Collector
    Erode District
    Erode.							.. 	Appellants

Vs.

1. M.Rajendran

2. The Principal Accountant General (A&E)
    Tamil Nadu
    361, Anna Salai
    Chennai.							..	Respondents

-----
 	Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.6.2014 made in W.P.No.26583 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
-----
		For Appellants	:    Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Spl.G.P.
		For Respondent-1	:    Mr.V.Suthakar
------


J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.6.2014 made in W.P.No.26583 of 2013.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

3. The grievance of the first respondent is that the services rendered by him as Part Time Panchayat Clerk was not taken into consideration while calculating pension. Therefore, he filed a writ petition and the same was allowed on 27.6.2014, along with similar writ petitions, holding that 50% of the services rendered by the writ petitioners as Part Time Panchayat Clerk should be taken into account while calculating pension and directing the concerned authority to calculate and issue orders granting pension and other benefits within a period of three months and to implement the same within a period of one month thereafter. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come up with this appeal.

4. As against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.6.2014 passed in a batch of writ petitions, one of the writ petitioner, filed W.A.No.431 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 11.4.2016, dismissed the appeal, holding that the learned single Judge had rightly concluded that the 50% of the services rendered by the petitioners therein under the consolidated pay by way of part time employment has to be taken into account for pensionary benefits.

5. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.4.2016 made in W.A.No.431 of 2016, this writ appeal is also dismissed in terms of the above judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.8080 of 2016 is closed.

Index	   : Yes/No				                (H.G.R.J.)    (M.V.M.J.)
Internet:  Yes/No                                                        24.6.2016

kpl






HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J, 
and                   
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.   

kpl     







W.A.No.612 of 2016.














24.6.2016.