citedby: 63264580

P.Rathinam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2019

31. The reading of the judgment of Ramar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.369 of 2008, dated 07.07.2010 against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.78 of 2007, the judgment of Alagarsamy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.803 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/31 W.P.(MD)Nos.24324 & 25333 of 2019 and 3431 of 2020 2002 etc. along with the revision filed on behalf of the victim against order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.10 of 2008 and the order of the Supreme Court on further appeal by Alagarsamy and others, we find though few of the accused are common in both the cases, the reason and motive for the occurrence are not same and the trial Court in both the cases, has disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed because the victims belong to SC community. Therefore, there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.

Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

P.Rathinam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2019

31. The reading of the judgment of Ramar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.369 of 2008, dated 07.07.2010 against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.78 of 2007, the judgment of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/31 W.P.(MD)Nos.24324 & 25333 of 2019 and 3431 of 2020 Alagarsamy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.803 of 2002 etc. along with the revision filed on behalf of the victim against order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.10 of 2008 and the order of the Supreme Court on further appeal by Alagarsamy and others, we find though few of the accused are common in both the cases, the reason and motive for the occurrence are not same and the trial Court in both the cases, has disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed because the victims belong to SC community. Therefore, there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.

Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

P.Rathinam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2019

31. The reading of the judgment of Ramar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.369 of 2008, dated 07.07.2010 against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.78 of 2007, the judgment of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/31 W.P.(MD)Nos.24324 & 25333 of 2019 and 3431 of 2020 Alagarsamy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in Crl.A.No.803 of 2002 etc. along with the revision filed on behalf of the victim against order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.10 of 2008 and the order of the Supreme Court on further appeal by Alagarsamy and others, we find though few of the accused are common in both the cases, the reason and motive for the occurrence are not same and the trial Court in both the cases, has disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed because the victims belong to SC community. Therefore, there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.

Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

V.Iyype vs The Director Of School Educational on 5 July, 2022

5. Pursuant to the amended Rule, even the honorarium or daily wage basis or consolidated pay service also can be taken into account for the purpose of counting of 50% of the service. This Court also allowed the claim of such part time employee for the purpose of counting of their 50% of service as qualifying service. This being the factum, the case of the writ petitioner also to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in V.Ramar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 Writ L.R.687. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

M. Manickam vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 11 April, 2016

13. Further it is his contention that in W.P.No.16771 to 16715 of 2013 batch, by order dated 09.04.2014 [V. Ramar vs. The State of Tamilnadu and others] this Court has interpreted Rule 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules and held that the phrase “job involving whole time employment” cannot be interpreted with a narrow meaning to the effect that such benefit is to be given only to a person appointed as full time employee or on regular employment.

Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Manickam vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 11 April, 2016

13. Further it is his contention that in W.P.No.16771 to 16715 of 2013 batch, by order dated 09.04.2014 [V. Ramar vs. The State of Tamilnadu and others] this Court has interpreted Rule 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules and held that the phrase “job involving whole time employment” cannot be interpreted with a narrow meaning to the effect that such benefit is to be given only to a person appointed as full time employee or on regular employment.

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.K.S.Balu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2017

14. Apart from this, in judgment of V.Ramar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9 and others [2014 Writ L.R. 687], the learned Judge of this Court was considered the following citations of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (i)2005(8) SCC 325 (Union of India and others Vs.Braj Nandan Singh; (ii)1996 (6) SCC 44 (Union of India and Others Vs,Dhanwanthi Devi and Others); (iii)W.P.No.11389 of 2003 etc., dated 08.07.2004 (K.R.Kumar Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and others); 2009 (16) SCC 722 (Surjit Singh Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited); and R.L.Arora Vs. State of U.P (AIR 1964 SC 1230). In the above said judgment, para 21 reads as follows:-

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

P.Natarajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 May, 2017

15.Across the Bar, it was also informed that the said judgment was also implemented. It is also informed across the bar that as against some similar decisions made by this Court, the State had gone upto Supreme Court and the S.L.P. filed by the State Government has been dismissed. Though specific reference was not given by the petitioners side, the said submissions made by them are not disputed from the respondents side.

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

G.Chokkalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 December, 2017

15. Moreover, under identical circumstances, when writ petitions were filed seeking to consider 50% of the service rendered as Part- time Vocational Teacher along with the regular service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits, this Court, by order dated 09.04.2014 passed in W.P.(MD) No.16771 of 2013, etc. batch., (V.Ramar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) held as under:

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

P.Pushpam vs The Accountant General (A & E) on 26 February, 2018

5.Pursuant to the amended Rule even the honorarium or daily wage basis or consolidated pay service also can be taken into account for the purpose of counting of 50% of the service. This Court also allowed the claim of such part time employee for the purpose of counting of their 50% of service as qualifying service. This being the factum, the case of the writ petitioner also to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in V.Ramar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 Writ L.R.687.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results