Allowed

R.Ponnusamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Oct 2016WP/35200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondents to count the petitioner's service as qualifying service for pension benefits in line with prior precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to count petitioner's service as qualifying service for pension and send revised proposal to Accountant General to grant pension.

R.Ponnusamy Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.10.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.35200 of 2016

¶6

R.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Forest and Environment Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Head of Forest Force,
No.1, Jeenis Road,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai-15.
3.The District Forest Officer,
Interfaced Forestry Division (IFF),
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Office of the Accountant General,
Anna Salai,Teynampet, Chennai-18. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher from 01.09.1986 till 06.08.2009 along with regular service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher in the Supernumery Post in the regular post on and from 07.08.2009 to 30.06.2016 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and send the revised proposal to the 4th respondent to grant pension with all consequential pensionary benefits.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents : Mr.N.Inabanathan, 1 to 3 Govt. Advocate (Forest) For 4th respondent: Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher from 01.09.1986 till 06.08.2009 along with regular service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher in the Supernumerary Post in the regular post from 07.08.2009 to 30.06.2016 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and send the revised proposal to the 4th respondent to grant pension with all consequential pensionary benefits.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Forest), who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent.

¶14

It is admitted on both sides that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court made in W.P.No.8205 of 2011, dated 19.4.2011 and W.P.No.13832 of 2011, dated 29.6.2011. Both these orders were confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2012 by a common Judgment, dated 13.2.2012. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the State against these Judgments in S.L.P (Civil) Nos.14838 and 14839 of 2012 were also dismissed on 10.5.2012.

¶15

Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed on the same lines as the above writ petitions were allowed. The orders shall be implemented within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

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

¶19

tsi

¶20

To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Forest and Environment Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Head of Forest Force,
No.1, Jeenis Road,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai-15.
3.The District Forest Officer,
Interfaced Forestry Division (IFF),
Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Office of the Accountant General,
Anna Salai,Teynampet, Chennai-18.
+1 CC to Mr. M.R. Jothimanian, Advocate Sr.No.57120
+1 CC to Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate, Sr.No.57640
W.P.No.35200 of 2016
KS (CO)
MD : 26/10/2016

¶21

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

R.Ponnusamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ponnusamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Savarimuthu, S/o.Arulandu Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Manickam, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Premavathy, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Thiruselvam Vs The Inspector General of

A.Manoharan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by

R.Amutha, Vs The Director General of Police