Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing M.Vellaiyan vs ) The Secretary To Government on 5 September, 2018

K.Velmayil vs The Secretary To Government on 31 January, 2019

In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian v. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu 24/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.370 of 2019 Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled to count 50% of their past service they have rendered as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along with the regular service for the purpose of pension. It is admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no 25/28 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.370 of 2019 scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impuged in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

S.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2020

In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian v. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having 11/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.17326 of 2020 regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled to count 50% of their past service they have rendered as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along with the regular service for the purpose of pension. It is admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impuged in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period 12/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.17326 of 2020 from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

S.Karuppasamy vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2020

In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian v. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having 11/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.17326 of 2020 regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled to count 50% of their past service they have rendered as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along with the regular service for the purpose of pension. It is admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impuged in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period 12/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.17326 of 2020 from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

K.Gopalan vs ) The Additional Chief Secretary on 25 September, 2020

In such circumstances, the judgment of Honourable Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian Vs. Secretary to Government Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled to count 50% of their past service they have rendered as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along with the regular service for the purpose of pension. It is admitted that the decisions of this court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has http://www.judis.nic.in 6/14 W.P.(MD) Nos.102677 & 12679 of 2020 been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impugned in W.P.(MD).No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 fro the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ”
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

N.Saradha … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2023

In such circumstance, the judgment of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian Vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to our interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled to count Page No.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10335 of 2021 50% of their past service they have rendered as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along with the regular service for the purpose of pension. It is admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ration settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer.”
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document

C.Kalavathy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 2024

In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon’ble WFB COPY of Mr.Justice S. Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian v. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Villa Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled entitled to count 50% of their past as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along It is service they Page No.26 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have have rendered with the regular service for the purpose of pension. Admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impugned in WP. (MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period from Page No.27 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Annamayil vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2025

In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon’ble WFB COPY of Mr.Justice S. Vaidyanathan in M.Vellaian v. Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and others may not hold good having regard to the specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Villa Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Leave alone the provisions of the Rules which have been given effect to or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:18:32 pm ) WP No. 6118 of 2019 interpreted in several precedents including the two judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case in several judgments of Division Bench, this Court has taken a consistent view that the petitioners are entitled entitled to count 50% of their past as Thalayaris upto 31.05.1995 along It is service they have have rendered with the regular service for the purpose of pension. Admitted that the decisions of this Court by the Division Bench have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. It is also admitted that the Government has implemented the consistent view expressed by this Court in several individual cases. It was on account of the fact that some of the precedents and the applicable rules have not been brought forth by the Government Pleaders properly before some of the learned Judges of this Court, the issue which has been raised by the Government has been answered against the Government in several precedents and the ratio settled by this Court has been followed and implemented in several individual cases by the Government. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for reference to a larger Bench and that the order impugned in WP. (MD)No.70 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.70 of 2019 stands allowed in tune with the earlier precedents of this Court. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 08:18:32 pm ) WP No. 6118 of 2019 first respondent is directed to pass orders counting 50% of the services of the appellant put in by him as Thalayari for the period from 07.01.1983 to 31.05.1995 for the purpose of calculation of pension along with regular services put in by him as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer and to send revised pension proposals within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1