Dismissed

C.Rajagopal, v. the Principal Accountant

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP/17750/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the rejection of his pension claim, arguing his service should be regularized earlier to qualify under the New Pension Scheme. The court upheld the lower order finding him ineligible due to his regularization date falling after the scheme's inception and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

C.Rajagopal, Vs the Principal Accountant — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.No.17750 of 2013

C.Rajagopal

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements), Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 016.

¶10

2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Krishna Water Project, Division VIII, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Krishna Water Project, Sub-Division - 4, Division - 8, Thiruvallur. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent to the letter No.Pen 15/4/11506498/11-12/Rev/ADK/114 dated 14.05.2012 and quash the same as illegal, improper, arbitrary against the rule of law and principles of natural justice and thereby direct the 1^st respondent to sanction the family pension of the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.R.K.Kalpana For R1 : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan, Additional Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

The claim of the petitioner is that he had joined the services of the second respondent on 01.02.1992 as Non-Muster Roll and subsequently, his services were regularized on 02.01.2008 with effect from 01.07.2004. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's services ought to have been regularized on 01.02.2002 and therefore, he would be entitled for pension under the New Pension Scheme.

¶18

The petitioner's claim came to be rejected through the impugned order dated 14.05.2012, stating that since he was regularized in service with effect from 01.07.2004, which is after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme on 01.04.2003, he is not covered under the pension scheme.

¶19

The reasoning given by the first respondent in the impugned order cannot be found fault with. When the petitioner herein was regularized in service only on 01.07.2004, he would not be entitled for the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, since his date of regularization on completion of regularization is after 01.04.2003, which is after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme. Thus, there is no infirmity in the findings of the order passed by the first respondent.

¶20

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

hvk

¶26

¶27

1.The Principal Accountant

¶28

General (Accounts & Entitlements), Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 016.

¶29

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

¶30

2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Krishna Water Project, Division VIII, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶31

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Krishna Water Project, Sub-Division - 4, Division - 8, Thiruvallur.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate, S.R.No.23293 +1cc to Mr.R.K.Kalpana, Advocate, S.R.No.23138 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23821

¶33

W.P.No.17750 of 2013

¶34

RR(CO) SB(19/04/2022)

¶35

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

C.Rajagopal, v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajagopal, v. the Principal Accountant

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

S.Velu Vs Supriya Sahu I.A.S.

Dr. R.Thiagarajan, Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary &

Dr. R.Prakash Krupakaran, Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary &

S.Manoharan, Vs the Chief Electoral Officer

The General Manager, Vs Special Deputy Commissioner of

E.Nagarajan, Vs The Principal Secretary