Partly allowed

P.Sundar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Apr 2015WP/41/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged termination and sought regularization with pension benefits including condonation of service break. Court directed first respondent to consider representations on merits within four months after calling report from second respondent, allowing no further disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider representations on merits and pass orders within four months after calling report from second respondent.

P.Sundar Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.04.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WP.No.41 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1. P.SUNDAR ... PETITIONERS 2. K.DEVAN 3. KAMARAJ 4. S.KANAKASABAPATHY

¶6

Vs 1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE DMS COMPOUND CHENNAI-6 ... RESPONDENTS

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointment by condoning the break in service between 2001 and 2005 and to accept the GPF contribution instead of CPF contribution and thereby bring them into pensionable services and to extend all consequential services benefits both pension and other pensionary benefits

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, AGP

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard Mr.L.Chandramumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issuance of a direction upon the respondents to forthwith regularize their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment by condoning the break in service between 2001 and 2005 and to accept the GPF contribution instead of CPF contribution and thereby bring them into pensionable services and to extend all consequential services benefits both pension and other pensionary benefits.

¶13

The facts of the case of the petitioners are they were all appointed as Casual Labourers on daily wage basis on rendition of requisite number of years of service and with reference to sponsor by the employment exchange and that of the educational qualification and roaster, they were selected and appointed as drivers. When that being the case, to the shock and surprise, vide proceedings dated 23.11.2005, the petitioners services came to be terminated, which was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.3285 of 2006, pursuant to which, they came to be absorbed and their services were regularized. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that by G.O.Ms.No.325, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 13.12.2006, time scale of pay was extended to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2007 and are continuing as such. In view of the services having been rendered prior to coming into being of the contributory provident fund, thereby becoming eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits thereto, the petitioners submitted detailed representations on 30.07.2013 seeking condonation of the period of the so called break in view of rendition of more than two decades of services, initially as casual labourers and followed by services being rendered in the regular establishment in the time sale of pay thereby making them eligible for availing pensionary benefits, by taking into account the 50% of the casual labourer services, along with that of the regular services as had been done in the amended provisions of Rule 11 (2) of the Pension Rules. Since, the same have not been considered, this writ petition is filed.

¶14

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law and sufficient time may be granted to the authorities.

¶15

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

¶16

In the light of the above submission, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representations dated 30.07.2013 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after calling for appropriate report from the 2nd respondent.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

rg To 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF TAMILNADU HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE DMS COMPOUND CHENNAI-6 +1cc to Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.21172 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21103 WP.No.41 of 2014 KU(CO) CA(23/04/2015)

¶22

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

P.Sundar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sundar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundarraj Vs the District Collector

G.Durai, Vs The Secretary

V.Kasinatha Bharathi, Vs the Secretary to the

S.a.Gurumoorthy, Vs the Tahsildar

P.Shanmugam, Vs the Senior Divisional Manager

A.Arivudaiyappan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu