The Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State. It held that the Single Judge was correct in allowing the respondent's writ petition and directing the authorities to grant full pension based on a specific Government Order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.08.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICEG.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014
Animal Husbandry Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
Chennai-6.
Vs.
A.Pandiammal : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD).No.13429 of 2011, dated 27.06.2014 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Prayer in WP(MD). 13429/ 2011 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records in Mu.Mu.No.50820/N3/2011, dated 04-10-2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to grant full Pension to the Petitioner by implementing the G.O.118 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14-02-1996.
For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Mohamad Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. ]
The State Government is on appeal challenging the order dated 27.06.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.13429 of 2011, filed by the respondent herein. The husband of the respondent was initially appointed as Junior Mazdoor on daily wage basis in Tamil Nadu Poultry Corporation in 1975(TAPCO). He was later appointed as Junior Mazdoor in the Animal Husbandry Department. He retired from his service on 31.03.2003. If his service in Tamil Nadu Poultry Corporation (TAPCO) is also included, his service would be 28 years and he would have been eligible for full pension. But his pension was not sanctioned. In the mean time, he passed away on 04.09.2003. The respondent has been denied family pension. She made several representations to the authorities. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2011, her request was declined. She filed W.P. (MD).No.13429 of 2011.
2.The learned Single Judge held that as per G.O.(MS).No.118, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.02.1996, half of the service rendered under TAPCO should be included while calculating regular service for pensionary benefits. The learned Judge took note of the fact that a co-worker by name B.Subramanian, filed W.P.(MD).No.10144 of 2011 and the same was allowed.
3.The case of the respondent was found to be on parwith the same. Therefore her writ petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders granting full pension by implementing G.O.(MS).No.118 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.02.1996. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge are sound. We do not want to take different view. There is no merit in the writ appeal. It stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
3
MK/KK/SAR-2/06.11.2017/3P/6C
Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 Dated :17.08.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge correctly allowed the writ petition challenging the denial of full family pension.
State of Tamil Nadu
Director of Animal Husbandry
Joint Director of Animal Husbandry
A. Pandiammal
K.K.Sasidharan
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
