Allowed

N.Kuppusamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jun 2015WP/10592/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to consider a petitioner's representation for granting regular pension despite resignation after 12 years of service, citing relevant judgments and government orders.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent to consider the representation dated 06.06.2012 and sanction regular pension and other retired benefits with 6% interest per annum within 8 weeks.

N.Kuppusamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.6.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.10592 of 2015

¶6

N.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.

¶9

The Director of Pension, D.M.S Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. 3. The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2012 in view of G.O.Ms.No.19, School Education [S1(1)] Department, dated 06.02.2001 and sanction the regular pension and other retired benefits with 6% interests per annum.

¶11

The petitioner is serving as a Physical Education Teacher in the Government High School, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri District. He joined the service in the year 1957 and served for 12 years. Thereafter, he resigned from service. He made a representation dated 06.06.2012 to the first respondent to grant him pension based on G.O.Ms.No.19, School Education Department dated 06.2.2001 wherein a teacher similarly situated like the petitioner, who also resigned from service was granted pension when he rendered more than 10 years of service. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the Judgment dated 15.12.2011 in W.P.No.5170 of 2011 in K.Devan Vs. The District Forest Officer i.e., enclosed at Page 3 of the typed set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wherein a direction was issued for payment of pension in the case

¶12

of resignation when the Government Servant served for more than 10 years. The said Judgment was confirmed in W.A.No. 317 of 2012 in The District Forest Officer Vs. K.Devan dated 28.10.2013. The Government issued G.O.3(D)No.81, dated 11.09.2014 and granted pension. The petitioner also relied on another Judgment reported in 2008 (6) CTC 700 in D.Vijayarangan Vs. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Madurai.

¶13

Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is aged 82 years and also the aforesaid fact, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 06.6.2012 which is enclosed at page 7 of the typed set of papers, in the light of G.O.3(D)No.81, dated 11.09.2014 and Judgment dated 15.12.2011 in W.P.No.5170 of 2011 in K.Devan Vs. The District Forest Officer and that was confirmed by the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.317 of 2012 in The District Forest Officer Vs. K.Devan dated 28.10.2013 and also the Judgment of a Division Bench reported in 2008 (6) CTC 700 (cited supra) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009. 2. The Director of Pension, D.M.S Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. 3. The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri District. +1 cc to Mr.G.Punniyakotti, Advocate,SR.27578 +1 cc to Government Pleader,sR.27215. Km(co) krd 11/6

¶15

W.P.No.10592 of 2015

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Kuppusamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kuppusamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Dhasan S/O.Pudhaliya Vs the Phanindhra Reddy, IAS

P.Revathi Vs Saikumar

R.Ram Kumar, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Srinivasan Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Manahavala Perumal Vs State of Tamilnadu