Allowed

A. Durairaj v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Jun 2015WP/18679/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to count 50% of his pre-regularization social forestry service for pension calculation under Rule 11(2) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The court allowed the petition, ordering the State to fix and authorize terminal benefits within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed to count 50% pre-regularization service for pension; submit proposal within 8 weeks; authorize within 2 weeks thereafter.

A. Durairaj Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.18679 of 2014

¶6

A.Durairaj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 3. The District Forest Officer, Dindigul Division, Dindigul. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 018. ** ... Respondents ** R4 impleaded as per order of the Court dated 11.06.2015 made in M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 in W.P.Nos.18679 of 2014 and 15753 of 2015

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take into account 50% of the services of the petitioner as Social Forestry Worker from 1979 to 2007 along with the regular service of the petitioner from July 2007 to 31.05.2014 to reckon the total qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits to the Petitioner and to disburse the revised pension with arrears thereon, the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan, Government Advocate (Forests) for RR 1 to 3 Mr.Vijayashankar for R4

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he joined the Forest Department as Social Forestry Worker during 1979. Later, he was absorbed to regular establishment as Mali in the Forest Department with effect from 19.07.2007 pursuant to the order issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the second respondent herein. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Forest Guard on 03.05.2013. He retired from service on 31.05.2014.

¶13

The aforesaid facts are admitted in the counteraffidavit filed by the District Forest officer, Dindigul Division, Dindigul.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid pension and if 50% of the services rendered by him prior to regularisation is taken into account along with regular service for the purpose of pension and other benefits as per Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, he is entitled to pension. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2012 dated 13.02.2012 (Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Vs. M.Gopal), which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.1483814839 of 2012 on 10.05.2012. The Government implemented the same in G.O.Ms.No.183,Environment and Forests(FR-2) Department, dated 18.07.2012. Further,I have also passed an order in detail to count 50% of service rendered before regularisation in the case of P.Chinniyan Vs.State of Tamil Nadu,reported in(2014)6 MLJ 316.

¶15

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to count 50% of service rendered by the petitioner before regularization along with the regular service rendered after regularization for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits in the light of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and also the judgments referred to above and submit proposal for the terminal benefits for authorization before the fourth respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the fourth respondent is directed to authorize the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

gg
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Forest and Environment Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Dindigul Division,
Dindigul.
4. The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 018.
+1cc to Mr.Vijayashankar, Advocate, S.R.No.29420
+1cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.28469
W.P.No.18679 of 2014
TEJ(CO)
CA(12/04/2016)

¶22

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

A. Durairaj v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Durairaj v. The Government 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

S.Selvaraj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Madesh Vs The Deputy Inspector General

S.a.Ramalingam Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

Dr.N.Diviya Vs The Chairman

K.Loganathan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Eswari, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu