Allowed

Y.Chiranjeevi Rao, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC10 Aug 2022WP/20398/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to consider granting annual increments stopped since 2006 and consequential pensionary benefits to a retired employee. The judge held that the respondent could not deny lawful benefits after 36 years of service by invoking a time-barred language test rule not linked to salary cuts.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the plea for grant of increment stopped from 2006 till 2018 and revise pay and pensionary benefits within twelve weeks.

Y.Chiranjeevi Rao, Vs The Additional Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 10.08.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.20398 of 2018

Y.Chiranjeevi

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶11

Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.M/s.State Express Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant annual increment, weightage, review, wage settlement benefits, third review and fourth review from 2006 to 2017 and deemed promotion on par with juniors of the petitioner and pay the consequential benefits by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 27.07.2017 and 29.12.2017.

¶15

1/10

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr.D.Soundar Raj
For Respondents
R1	: Mr.K.Kathiresan
	Standing Counsel
R2	: Mr.R.Neethiperumal
	Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant annual increment, weightage, review, wage settlement benefits, third review and fourth review from 2006 to 2017 and deemed promotion on par with juniors of the petitioner and pay the consequential benefits by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 27.07.2017 and 29.12.2017.

¶21

2.The petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk in the year 1981 at the respondent Organization, i.e. State Express Transport Corporation. Though he was appointed as Record Clerk , for all these years of his service he had been placed at various capacities in various sections like Legal Section, Cash Section, Computer Reservation Ticket Section, Auditor, 2/10

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶24

Telephone Operator, Time Keeper and Traffic Section on par with Senior Superintendents/ Superintendents/Senior Assistants/Assistants/Junior Assistants and had been in service for 36 years.

¶25

2.After rendering service for 36 years, he gave voluntary retirement during 2018. Accordingly, he retired from service.

¶26

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had been periodically given increment from 1981, all of a sudden it was abruptly stopped only from 2006. Without giving increment, the petitioner had to serve from the year 2006 till 2018. Therefore, in order to get the increment and the corresponding pensionary benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶27

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who having reiterated the aforesaid would seek indulgence of this Court.

¶28

5.When this writ petition came up for hearing on 02.08.2022,

¶29

3/10

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶32

Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has submitted that in respect of the plea raised by the petitioner already a communication has been issued on 15.04.2016, where the rule position has been stated to the petitioner.

¶33

6.In order to produce the said communication dated 15.04.2016 since he sought for time, it was posted today. Today [10.08.2022], when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has produced a copy of the letter dated 15.04.2016 which is a covering letter where the letter dated 08.04.2016 of the Transport Corporation has been annexed. In the said letter, Rule 12 under the head “Linguistic Qualification” has been mentioned where it become an essential one to complete the Tamil language test as the employees working in the respondent Transport Corporation in a particular cadre has to complete the test within a period of four years.

¶34

7.If the incumbent is not able to complete the test within a period of

¶35

four years his/her service shall be discharged by the respondent Corporation,

¶36

4/10

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶39

i.e. Proviso to Rule 12 which has been quoted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and would submit that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in 2016 the Rule position was quoted to him and directed him to complete the test successfully. Since he has not come forward to complete the same he gave a letter for voluntary retirement with effect from 2018, the petitioner is not entitled to get any increment from 2006. Therefore, such a plea raised by the petitioner through the present writ petition may not be considered and granted, he contended.

¶40

8.I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶41

9.The petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk in the year 1981 and in that capacity he had been continuously working for 36 years before he gave voluntary retirement. If at all Rule 12 as mentioned by the respondent is to be invoked against the petitioner within the four years period, i.e. on or before 1985 either the petitioner could have been given a chance to complete the test or he should have been discharged from duties. However, the

¶42

5/10

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶45

petitioner was permitted to continue the service for 36 years and in that capacity, he had been posted in various sections as mentioned above and throughout his career it seems to be an unblemished service as no other reason has been stated by the respondent.

¶46

10.When that being so, why the respondent Corporation all of a sudden come forward to stop only from the year 2006 is not known.

¶47

11.Moreover the Rule position does not say that those who have not completed the test would loose the increment and accordingly, the increment payable to the petitioner has been cut off from 2006, it is not the cast of the respondent to that extent.

¶48

12.The only objection raised by the respondent is that in 2016, the Rule position was stated to the petitioner and he was asked to complete the test, but without completing the test since he has given voluntary retirement in 2018 no other benefits like the increment which was not given from 2006 to the petitioner can be granted as admittedly he has not completed the test.

¶49

6/10

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶52

13.The reason now cited by the respondent Corporation for not granting increment is not flowing from the Rule stated above. The Rule states that if he has not completed the test within four years even the employer can discharge the employee and in this case from the year 1981 till 2018 the petitioner has not been discharged. Moreover, four years limitation also was over. Therefore, the respondent Corporation has accepted the qualification of the petitioner and he had been permitted to serve the Corporation for 36 long years. Therefore, at the fag end the respondent Corporation cannot turn around and take a plea that since he has not completed the test within four years from the date of appointment, his increment which was cut off from 2006, after 25 years can be justified.

¶53

14.The reason cited by the respondent Corporation is not supported by any Rule including Rule 12 as stated by the respondent Corporation and moreover the person who worked for 36 years without any unblemished service cannot be denied to the lawful benefit of increment which would be payable to any other employee like the petitioner.

¶54

7/10

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶57

15.Therefore, this Court feel that this writ petition could be disposed

¶58

of with the direction to the respondents as prayed for. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:

¶59

“That there shall be a direction to the respondents,

¶60

especially the second respondent to consider the plea of the petitioner for grant of increment to the petitioner which was stopped from 2006 till 2018 and after giving such increment, his pay benefits shall be accordingly revised, based on which his pensionary benefits shall also be revised and paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶61

16.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

10.08.2022

¶63

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No cse

¶64

8/10

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶67

¶68

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶69

Transport Department,

¶70

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶71

2.M/s.State Express Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai,

¶72

Chennai – 600 002.

¶73

9/10

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶76

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.,

¶77

cse

¶78

WP.No.20398 of 2018

¶79

10.08.2022

¶80

10/10

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Y.Chiranjeevi Rao, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Chiranjeevi Rao, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

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.Ilavarasi Vs The Secretary

S.Arulprakasam Vs Chief Executive Officer

M/s. Ampa Sky Walk, Vs K.S.Devaseelan

V.Prakash Vs Kannapan

M.Ganga Vs The Secretary to Government

P.Nageswaran, S/o.Perumal Vs The Principal Secretary to