The High Court of Judicature at Madras closed two Writ Appeals and connected Miscellaneous Petitions, holding them infructuous because the respondents had already complied with earlier Court orders via a Government Order dated 09.04.2015.
Writ Appeals and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.Nos. 360 of 2014 & 125 of 2017 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.No. 360 of 2014 and C.M.P. Nos.22120 & 2112 of 2017 in W.A.No. 125 of 2017
5 The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Accountant General Office at Teynampet, Chennai – 18. .. 4th Appellant in both the WAs v.
W.A.No.360/2014 Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent against the order dated 11.11.2013 made in W.P.No.27236 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in WP.No.27236 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis from 5.12.1974 till 31.10.2003 along with regular service rendered by him as Forest Watcher from 1.11.2003 till the date of his retirement namely 31.10.2011 as qualifying service send the revised proposal to the 4th respondent to grant pension to the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.
Prayer in WP.No.31281 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 to 3 respondent to count the half of service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher from 01.09.1983 to 23.01.1995 on temporary basis along with the regular service from 24.01.1995 to till the date of retirement on 30.06.2016 as qualifying service for the purpose of conferment of pension and to direct the respondent to send pension proposal to the fourth respondent for grant of pension with all consequential benefits within time frame.
W.A.No.125/2017 Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 11.11.2013 made in W.P.No.31281 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr. S. Arumugam,
Government Advocate
For respondent : Mrs. K. Jenitha in W.A.25 of 2017
: Mr. S.Mani in W.A.360 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J. )
Mrs. K. Jenitha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellants had already complied with the orders of this court made in the Writ Petitions by passing an Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.50, Environment and Forest Department, dated 09.04.2015, hence the Writ Appeals have become infructuous.
2. Mr. S. Arumugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Writ Appeals may be closed.
3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the above Writ Appeals are closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To:
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.61993
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Forest), S.R.No.61372
W.A.Nos. 360 of 2014 & 125 of 2017 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.No. 360 of 2014 and C.M.P. Nos.22120 & 2112 of 2017 in W.A.No. 125 of 2017
PL(CO) SB(06/12/2021)
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
The District Forest Officer, Namakkal
The District Forest Officer, Trichy District
The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu
P. Ramamurthy
M. Duraismurthy
J. Sathya Narayana Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
