Allowed

P.Jeganathan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Apr 2018WP(MD)/9543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an education employee. The court directed the State to include 50% of the petitioner's part-time service alongside regular service for calculating total service length and pensionary benefits, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to take 50% of petitioner's part-time service for computing total length of service and consequent pensionary benefits within three months.

P.Jeganathan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.04.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9543 of 2018

P.Jeganathan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department,

¶12

Fort St.George, Chennai – 09

¶13

2.The Joint Director (Vocational) of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 06.

¶14

3.The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take the 50% of the part time service rendered by the petitioner ie from 04.04.1986 to 12.11.1997 along with the regular service for the pension benefits i.e for the period of 23 years 3 months and 8 days based on the judgment dated 09.04.2014 passed in W.P.NO.16771 of 2013.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy

¶17

Special Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶20

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to take 50% of the part time service rendered by the petitioner ie from 04.04.1986 to 12.11.1997 along with the regular service for computing pensionary benefits.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal filed by the State Government in W.A.No.392 of 2017

¶22

¶23

etc. batch dated 21.04.2017, where the appeals filed by the Government were dismissed and 50% of the part time service was directed to be taken into account for computing total length of service for the purpose of computing pension.

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader also agrees that

¶25

the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶26

In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are directed to take into 50% of part time service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of computing the total length of service and consequential entitlement of pensionary benefits. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary,School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 09

¶33

2.The Joint Director (Vocational) of School Education, College Road,Chennai – 06.

¶34

3.The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶35

+1CC to Mr.R.Saravanan, Advocate, SR.No. 64394 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.65012

¶36

W.P(MD)No.9543 of 2018

¶37

27.04.2018

¶38

¶39

AM/SKN RSK/SAR 4/21.05.2018/2P/6C

¶40

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

P.Jeganathan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jeganathan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Competition Team Vs Union of India

M/s.Ponni Mobiles rep by Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, Vs The Deputy Commercial Officer

V. Muniyasamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Thangammal, Vs the Managing Director

Berkmans Vs the Managing Director