Dismissed

Dr.P.Selvaraj v. Chief Secretary to Govt of

Madras HC11 Oct 2017WA/470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An intra-court appeal wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a former employee seeking pension and gratuity. The Court held that his second appointment was a reemployment, not a fresh one, making Rule 10(3)(b) applicable which excludes gratuity for reemployed persons.

What did the court decide?

The intra-cour appeal filed against the order dated 28.11.2012 was dismissed. No costs.

Dr.P.Selvaraj Vs Chief Secretary to Govt of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A.No.470 OF 2013

¶6

Dr.P.Selvaraj ... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1.The Chief Secretary to Government of Puducherry and Chairman, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture,(Karaikkal) Society, Chief Secretariat,Puducherry

¶9

2.The Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Chief Secretariat, Government of Puducherry,Puducherry

¶10

3.Dr.L.Nadarajan, Dean,Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture, (PAJANCOA) Nedungadi Post, Karaikkal 609603 ... Respondents

¶11

Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated 28.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.5302 of 2008.

¶12

Prayer in WP.No.5302/2008:Writ Petition filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to calling for the records relating to the Impugned Note 6846/00/I/PJN/Estt/EI/2007 dated 02.11.2007 passed by the third respondent to quash the same and direct the third respondent to sanction service and retirement gratuity as provided in Rule 49 & 50 of the CCS(Pension) Rules with interest thereon for the delayed payment to the petitioner.

¶13

For appellant : No appearance

¶14

For Respondents: Ms.V.Usha,

¶15

Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) for respondents 1 and 2 R3 : Notice Served

¶16

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

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶19

The writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.No.5302 of 2008, challenging the note dated 2 November 2007, declining to grant pension and gratuity is under challenge in this intra court appeal.

¶20

The appellant was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. The appellant, after taking voluntary retirement, joined on temporary basis as Professor in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College and Agricultural Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as “PAJANCAO”), Karaikkal. The appellant was later promoted as Dean by order dated 9 March 2000. The appellant on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30 April 2007. The appellant made a claim for payment of gratuity and pension. The claim was negatived by the employer on the ground that he is in receipt of pension from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and as such, he is not entitled to pension and gratuity from the institution at Karaikkal. The said order was put in issue before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge having found that Rule 10(3)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, would not give right to a reemployed person for payment of gratuity, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up with this intra court appeal.

¶21

The appellant approached the writ court under the premise that his appointment in PAJANCAO was a fresh appointment. However, the fact remains that it was only a reemployment. The working sheet attached to the order re-fixing the pay of the appellant contains the details of the last drawn pay before his retirement, and deducting the pension, his actual pay was fixed. Therefore, it is very clear that the appellant was appointed only as a reemployed person.

¶22

Rule 10(3)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, provides that reemployed person is not entitled for gratuity. The appellant, throughout his service received pension from his erstwhile employer. It was only after his retirement, the appellant claimed that his appointment was nothing but fresh appointment and as such, he is entitled to pension. The appellant misquoted Rule 49 and 50 of the Central Civil Service Rules, and contended that he is entitled to pension. The said rule has no application, in view of the reappointment of the appellant. The correct rule applicable would be Rule 10(3)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules. The Writ Petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter.

¶23

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

¶24

In the upshot, we dismiss the intra court appeal. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government
of Puducherry and Chairman,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College
of Agriculture,(Karaikkal)Society,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry
2.The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Chief Secretariat,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry
+1cc to the Government Pleader(Pondy), S.R.No.73224
W.A.No.470 OF 2013
NRI(CO)
GN(20/11/2017)

¶26

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

Dr.P.Selvaraj v. Chief Secretary to Govt of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Selvaraj v. Chief Secretary to Govt of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Vishwa Infrastructures Vs the Chief Engineer (a/C)

Glenrock Estates (P) Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dasarathan Vs the Chairman

Smt Lakshmikantham Vs Smt P.Anandavalli Ammal

S.L.N. Builders Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P. Anand (Minor) Vs the Directorate of Government