Allowed

R.Ramajalam v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC25 Jan 2018WA/1157/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench held that the right to pension is a continuing right, thus barring the applicability of delay and laches. The Court set aside the single Judge's dismissal and directed the Revenue Department to consider the appellants' claims for counting part-time service on merits within four months.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals allowed; single Judge's order set aside; respondents directed to consider part-time service claims on merits within four months.

R.Ramajalam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.01.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶7

WA.Nos.1157 to 1163/2016 & CMP.Nos.14916 to 14921/2016
R.Ramajalam .. Appellant in
WA.No.1157/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15546/2016
Samuvel @ Vedhamuthu .. Appellant in
WA.No.1158/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15547/2016
K.Mydeen Khan .. Appellant in
WA.No.1159/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15548/2016
G.Lakshmanan .. Appellant in
WA.No.1160/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15549/2016
A.Jeyaraj .. Appellant in
WA.No.1161/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15550/2016
V.John .. Appellant in
WA.No.1162/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15551/2016
C.Muthusamy .. Appellant in
WA.No.1163/2016/Petitioner in W.P. 15552/2016
vs.

¶8

The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai. .. Respondents in all Writ Appeals

¶9

Prayer : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶10

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

¶11

WP.Nos.15546, 15547, 15548, 15549, 15550, 15551 & 15552/2016 dated 27.04.2016.

¶12

W.P. 15546 to 15552/2016(in all W.Ps)

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider and pass approriate orders sanctioning of full pension taking into account of the services rendered during the period 20.04.1966 to 31.05.1955, 1986 to 31.05.1995, 16.02.1966 to 31.05.1995, 1986 to 31.05.1995, 1961 to 31.05.1995, 26.03.1968 to 31.05.1995, 13.01.1963 to 31.05.1995 respectively, (i.e) the period of the part time services rendered by the Petitioners applying the ration of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court in W.P(MD) 1716 of 2005 dated 24.08.2007 within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

The writ petitions filed by the appellants for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction them full pension, taking into account, their earlier part-time service, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches. Feeling aggrieved, the unsuccessful writ petitioners are before this Court.

¶15

2 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

3 The writ petitions filed by the appellants to count their part time service for the purpose of pension, was rejected by the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay and laches. The question as to whether the claim for pension is a continuing right, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment dated 17.01.2006 [Chairman, Railway Board Vs. P.Chandrasekaran]. The Division Bench was pleased to observe that right to receive pension is a continuing right.

¶17

4 Since the right to receive pension is a continuing right of the employee, there is no question of invoking the principle of delay and laches. In fact, under similar circumstances, this Court has entertained writ petitions and

¶18

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

¶19

directed the Government to consider the matter on merits. [Judgment dated 12.02.2014 in WP.No.3781/2014- M.GURULAKSHMANAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER].

¶20

5 Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions only on the ground of delay and laches and since the right to receive pension is admittedly a continuing right, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

6 We direct the respondents to consider the claim of the appellants for counting their part time service on merits and as per law. It is open to the appellants to produce materials before the Government to substantiate their contentions.

¶22

7 Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

8 The appellants are directed to forward a copy of the representation along with a copy of this Judgment, so as to enable the 1^st respondent to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

9 The Intra-Court appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai.

¶25

+1 CC to Mr.S. Sathia Chandran, Advocate sr 5975. +1 cC to Govt. Pleader, sr 6234

¶26

WA.Nos.1157 to 1163/2016 LRS(CO) SP(13/02/2018)

¶27

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

R.Ramajalam v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramajalam v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

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

The Secretary Vs S.Balaraman

The Teachers Recruitment Board Vs G.Sasikala

M.Jayapalan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

The President, Vs B.Indhira,W/O.Late Balaraman

The Corporation of Chennai Vs R.Venkatachalam

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs G. Thenmozhi