Allowed

The Secretary, v. Thirunavukkarasu

Madras HC14 Dec 2021SA/719/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by handloom weaver society officials against a Sub-Court decree granting old age pension. The Court held that the respondents failed to meet mandatory eligibility criteria, specifically the requirement of active membership and weaving for two years immediately prior to reaching age 60. The Court restored the District Munsif Cour

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal allowed; Judgment and decree of the Sub-Court granting pension set aside; Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court dismissing the suit restored.

The Secretary, Vs Thirunavukkarasu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

S.A.No.719 of 2012

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶7

1.The Secretary, Ulkottai Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Ulkottai Village,

¶8

Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶9

2.The Special Officer, Ulkottai Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Ulkottai Village,

¶10

Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶11

3.The Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles Department, Kumbakonam.

¶12

4.The Director, Handloom and Textiles Department, Kuralagam,

¶13

Chennai – 600 104

¶14

...Appellants/Defendants

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.Thirunavukkarasu

¶17

2.Mangayarkarasi ...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶18

PRAYER: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, dated 13.09.2010, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam, dated 18.03.2008.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate

¶20

For R1 : Died

¶21

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

¶22

For R2 : Mr.S.Kamadevan

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The defeated defendant is the appellant herein.

¶25

2.This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, dated 13.09.2010, wherein, the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam, dated 18.03.2008.

¶26

3.The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.257 of 2006, before the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam, seeking relief of claiming Weavers Pension of Rs.200/- by way of mandatory injunction and they relied upon the following facts:

¶27

(a).The plaintiffs have entered into a membership of the Weavers Pension Scheme on 24.09.1961, the first plaintiff was aged about 70 years and the second plaintiff was aged about 68 years and from 01.07.2000, they are having the hand book relating to Tamil Nadu Weaver Guidelines, wherein, above 60 years, they are entitle for monthly pension of Rs.200/- and hence, the suit.

¶28

4.The appellants/defendants resisted claiming, inter alia contended that in view of the bar under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the suit is not maintainable. In respect of the plaintiffs, no Rules have been violated, though the plaintiffs are aged about 60 years since they are not satisfied the Rule contemplated under Serial No.3 and Page No.10 of the hand book, wherein it is stated that prior to the date of the application, they should have been a member and weaving up to two years.

¶29

5.Before the Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked; on behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked.

¶30

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on 18.03.2008. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.62 of 2008 before the SubCourt, Ariyalur, wherein, the learned Judge by an dated 13.09.2010 has revered the judgment and decree passed in the

¶31

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

¶32

suit and granted decree without noticing the facts properly. Hence, the Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

¶33

7.Heard the respective learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

¶34

8.Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent made a submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court and also submitted that some lenient view may be taken since it is a beneficiary scheme.

¶35

9.As per the records, the first plaintiff had obtained Weavers Cooli on 17.05.1997, while the second plaintiff had obtained on 25.01.1995 and therefore, immediately prior to the pension, they ought to have served for two years and besides there should not be any additional payment for subscription for a period of six months. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has come to the factual conclusion that the first plaintiff was aged about 70 years and the second plaintiff was aged about 68 years at the time of the evidence and they received Weaver cooli on 15.07.1995 & 21.11.1995 based upon Exs.B4 & B5, they are not remitted, pursuant to the subscription for six months prior in time.

¶36

10.As per the pleadings, on 08.08.2005, the plaintiffs have enrolled themselves in the membership of the Weavers Pension and the said application is marked as Ex.B4 and therefore, they must have been waiving for two years prior to 08.08.2005. However, on factual position, it appears that the first plaintiff served only up to 17.07.1995, while the second plaintiff has served up to 21.11.1995 only and hence, I find that they are not entitle for the Weaver Old Age Pension Scheme introduced in the year 1997.

¶37

11.Further, the plaintiffs have found to be not eligible for the Weavers Pension Scheme, since the date of birth of the first plaintiff is 24.07.1936 and the second plaintiff is 25.06.1938. Subsequent clause in by law 7 goes to the effect that two years prior to completion of 60 years they ought to have been in weaving on that score also they have found to be fall sort of the eligibility.

¶38

12.Hence, taking into consideration the factual position that the plaintiffs have completed waiving up to 58 years while second plaintiff has completed waiving up to 57 years and they should also completed two years period as mentioned in the by law, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that

¶39

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

¶40

they are not entitled to, besides the suit is also held to be not maintainable. However, without noticing the above fact the Lower Appellate Court has granted the decree.

¶41

13.Further, taking into consideration the Weavers Pension Scheme 1997, for eligibility of pension in Page No.10, Serial No.3, Section-A as per the hand book issued by the department, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not satisfied the eligibility criteria as stated in G.O.Ms.No.199 and hence, I find that the Lower Appellate Court has not properly apprised of the Rule 7 of the Weavers Pension Scheme and on the factual position that the persons ought to have been an active member from the age of 58 to 60 years, which is mandatory for getting pension and on factual position the respondent/plaintiff are found to be not active member between the age 58 and 60 years unless the person is active member in the insurance scheme he is not entitle to.

¶42

14.Hence, I find that the finding rendered by the Lower Appellate court is not in accordance with the above said hand book and on the factual position, the respondents have not satisfied the eligibility criteria fixed for Old Age Pension for Wavers. In this view of the matter the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are stands vacated and the findings of the Trial Court is restored.

¶43

15.Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the SubCourt, Ariyalur, dated 13.09.2010, is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam, dated 18.03.2008, is restored. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs.

¶44

s/d-

¶45

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶46

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶47

dua To

¶48

1.The Sub-Court, Ariyalur.

¶49

2.The District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam.

¶50

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

¶51

Copy to

¶52

The Section Officer VR Section

¶53

High Court, Madras 104.

¶54

+1 CC to The Special Government Pleader (CS) sr 67623.

¶55

S.A.No.719 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶56

RSI(CO) SP(25/03/2022)

¶57

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

The Secretary, v. Thirunavukkarasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, v. Thirunavukkarasu

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

Ramakrishnan Vs M.Ramu

K. Balaraman Vs J. Nehru

A.Aruchamy Vs P.Jayabalan (Deceased)

K.Murugesan Vs Subramani

A.Mohanasundaram Vs Avinashi Gounder

Pongiannan Vs Thavasiammal