Partly allowed

The Member Secretary, v. S.Bharathan

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WA(MD)/443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the Madras High Court partly directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to reconsider a retired Assistant Engineer's petition for pension inclusion of past Public Works Department service, subject to his bearing pro rata leave salary contributions as per Government Order 312 of 2008.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellants to reconsider the respondent's case in light of G.O. No. 312 of 2008 and AG intimation to include past service subject to non-payment of pro rata contributions within eight weeks.

The Member Secretary, Vs S.Bharathan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD) No.1738 of 2021

¶7

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.5520 of 2014

¶9

1.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy,

¶10

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,

¶11

Chennai – 600 032.

¶12

2.The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Kappalur, Madurai. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2 Vs.

¶13

1.S.Bharathan ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶14

2.Engineer in Chief, (Water Resources Organization), Public Works Department,

¶15

Chennai – 600 005. ... 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶16

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5520 of 2014, dated 08.01.2020.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 5520/ 2014 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus direct the Respondent to sanction the pension to the petitioner taking into consideration the pensinoers total service of 38 years 3 months from the date of petitioners joining in the public works Department on 30.04.1968 till the petitioners retirement in the Respondents pollution control Board on 31.07.2006 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aqccordingly to issue the revised pension order stating the quantun

¶19

1/5

¶20

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

¶21

of pension payable to the petitioner and to pay the consequential arrears arising thereon within the stipulated perios prescribed by this Honble Court and granting such other and further relief as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.C.Kasirajan Standing Counsel For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Muthumalai For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass Special Government Pleader

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

¶25

This Writ Appeal by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Kappalur, Madurai, is directed against the order dated 08.01.2020, in W.P.(MD) No.5520 of 2014, filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner herein.

¶26

2.The prayer of the writ petitioner was to direct the appellants and the third respondent herein to sanction pension to the first respondent/writ petitioner taking into consideration the writ petitioner's total service of 38 years 3 months from the date of his joining in the Public Works Department on 30.04.1968 till his retirement in the appellants Pollution Control Board on 31.07.2006 and to issue revised pension order stating the quantum of pension payable to the petitioner and to pay the consequential arrears arising thereon.

¶27

3.The Writ Petition was allowed noting that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant Pollution Control Board. What weight in the mind of the learned Writ Court was Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.312, Public Works (F1) Department, dated 22.10.2008, which provides for repayment of proportionate pensionary liability, which will facilitate the appellant Board to collect that amount and include the past services.

¶28

4.The learned Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant Board did not issue any remittance challan to the writ petitioner for paying proportionate pensionary liability. Accordingly, the Writ Court directed the writ petitioner to send a Demand Draft for Rs.60,220/- towards proportionate pensionary liability, covering the period of his employment in the Public Works Department and on receipt of the same, the first appellant was directed to appropriate the said amount in the concerned head, so as to enable the petitioner to get pensionary benefits and forward the same to the Accountant General (A&E), Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

2/5

¶30

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

¶31

Nadu, Chennai – 19 and the above exercise has to be carried out within a time frame.

¶32

5.It is not clear as to why the appellant Board did not appear before the learned Writ Court. Be that as it may, any direction for the writ petitioner to pay the proportionate pensionary liability either at the instance of the Government or the Accountant General without the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board will not bind the Board. To that extent, the appellant Board is justified in sustaining this appeal before us. However, we note that the Government has taken a decision and passed G.O.Ms.No.312, Public Works (F1) Department, dated 22.10.2008, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

¶33

“ 3.jkpH;ehL Xa;t{jpa tpjpfs; 11 kw;Wk ; 24 Mfpatw;wpw ;Fj ; jpUj;jk ; bra;J btspaplg;gl ;Ls ;s murhiz vz;.349> epjp (Xa;t {jpak;) ehs; 5.5.1995d;go gzpahsh; xUth; jw;fhypf (my;yJ) epue;juj; Jiwapy; epiyngWs;s mYtyfj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk ; bghGJ> gzpapy; Fwf;fPLfs; (Interruption) Vw;gl ;lhy ;> mf;FWf;fPL fhyq;fSk; Xa;t{ag; gyd;fSf;F vLj;Jf ; bfhs;syhk;. vdnt> jpU.v];.gujd;> cjtp braw;bghwpahsh; (Xa;t [) mth;fs;> bghJg;gzpj;Jiwapy; gzpg[hpe ;j 30.4.1968 Kjy; 23.9.1987 tiuapyhd fhyj;jpid md;dhuJ Xa;t{jpag; gyd;fSf;F brd;idapYs;s jkpH;ehL Cuff; fl;Lg;ghl;L thhpaj;Jiwapy; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf ;bfhs;s tpfpjhr;rhu Xa;t{jpag; bghWg;ig (Pensionary liability)> md;dhh; xnu jtizapy; muRf;F brYj;j ntz;Lk ; vd;w epge;jida [ld ;> mDkjpj;J muR MizapLfpwJ.

¶34

5.,t;thiz epjpj;Jiw m.rh.F.vz;.35112/Fin(BPE)/ 2008> ehs; 16.10.2008 ,irt[ld; btspaplg;gLfpwJ.”

¶35

Pursuant to the above Government Order, the Accountant General had addressed the Chief Engineer, PWD, Chepauk, Madras – 5, on the following terms:-

¶36

“OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI -18

¶37

NO: PEN 15/III/B57-1453/RTD/08-09/623 DT:

¶38

TO The Chief Engineer, PWD, Chepauk, Madras – 5. Sir,

¶39

Sub: Prorata Pension/Pension Liability in r/o. Shri. S.Bharathan, Asst. Engineer, Permanently absorbed in Tamil nadu Pollution Control – Regarding. Ref: Your Office Letter No.S1(2)/35365/06 dated 27/1/2009

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

3/5

¶43

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

¶44

With reference to your letter cited, I am to state that a sum of Rs.60220 (Rs. Sixty thousand two hundred and twenty only) is found admissible as capitalized value/pension liability Rs.60220. Capitalized Value Rs.47447, DCRG Rs.12773 in respect of Shri.S.Bharathan, Assistant Engineer, permanently absorbed in TamilNadu Pollution Control Board with effect from 24.9.87. The official may be instructed to remit the abovesaid amount so that the services rendered in PWD may be taken for calculation of pensionary benefits. The fact of remittance may be intimated to this office. The Service Register (2 Volumes) is sent herewith. The receipt of the same may please be acknowledged.

Yours faithfully,

ACCOUNTS OFFICER

Encl: As above”

6.Though the appellants may be justified in stating that the case of the writ petitioner is not one of deputation and therefore, the Government Order cannot be implemended, however, what is to be bourne in mind is that the Government Order has been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Thus, the Board has to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Further, the appellants case itself is that the former Member Secretary of the Board has passed a proceedings dated 21.02.2014, wherein, it has been noted that the Writ Petitioner alone has sought for inclusion of the past services in the PWD Department. Further, in the Government letter dated 18.03.2014, a direction was issued to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to re-examine the previous similar cases in particularly the case of the respondent/writ petitioner, wherein the Board denied to count his service. This communication is also to be taken into consideration by the Board. For the above reasons, we are inclined to modify the order passed by the learned Writ Court.

¶49

7.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and there will be a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.312, Public Works (F1) Department, dated 22.10.2008, the proceedings of the Accountant General referred above and the direction to the Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests (EC-2) Department dated 18.03.2014, wherein the Government has specifically stated that the Board may decide the quantum of other terminal benefits, subject to the condition that the individual has to bear the pro rata contributions for leave salary as per the rules

¶50

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

¶51

4/5

¶52

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

¶53

in vogue. This direction will have to be complied with by the appellants within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶54

Assistant Registrar (CSII)

¶55

// True Copy //

¶56

/ /2021

¶57

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶58

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶59

¶60

1.The Engineer in Chief, (Water Resources Organization), Public Works Department, Chennai – 600 005.

¶61

+1 CC to M/s.K.MUTHUMALAI, Advocate ( SR-16415[F] dated 19/04/2021 )

¶62

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-16277[F] dated 17/04/2021 )

¶63

W.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021 16.04.2021

¶64

SRK(CO)

¶65

KB(24.05.2021) 5P 4C

¶66

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

¶67

5/5

The Member Secretary, v. S.Bharathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Member Secretary, v. S.Bharathan

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

The Managing Director Vs J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani

Sri Manavala Mamunigal Trust Vs the Commissioner

Shanmugavalli.P Vs The Accountant General (a and E)

V.Maheswari Vs v.Thalirkodi

K.Selvaraj Vs C.Susila

Chandramouli Vs the Corporation Commissioner