Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. v.Sudhahar Saravanan

Madras HC9 Mar 2023REV.APLW/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applications challenging an order in pension benefit cases were dismissed. The court held there was no apparent error, directing authorities to follow the Full Bench judgment on counting 50% of temporary services under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

What did the court decide?

Review applications stood disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs v.Sudhahar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.6200 & 6203 of 2022

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶11

3.The District Library Officer,

¶12

1^st Floor, District Central Library Building, Chengam Saalai, Thiruvannamalai – 606603.

¶13

... Applicants

¶14

(in all Rev.Applns)

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.V.Sudhahar Saravanan

¶17

... Respondent

¶18

in Rev.Appln.No.32 of 2022

¶19

2.S.Krishnan

¶20

... Respondent

¶21

in Rev.Appln.No.33 of 2022

¶22

3.K.Jayachandran

¶23

... Respondent

¶24

in Rev.Appln.No.34 of 2022

¶25

Page 1 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶28

Prayer in Rev.Appln.No.32 of 2022: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 13.08.2018 made in W.P.No.4817 of 2018.

¶29

Prayer in Rev.Appln.No.33 of 2022: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 13.08.2018 made in W.P.No.4818 of 2018.

¶30

Prayer in Rev.Appln.No.34 of 2022: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 13.08.2018 made in W.P.No.4819 of 2018.

¶31

For Applicants : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate (in all Rev.Applns) For Respondents : R.Prem Narayan (in all Rev.Applns)

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

These review applications have been filed to review the common

¶34

order passed by this Court on 13.08.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.4817, 4818 and 4819 of 2018.

¶35

Page 2 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶38

The Writ Appeal filed by the State was dismissed with liberty to file review application before this Court. Thus, the applicants have chosen to file these review applications. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in [2019 (6) CTC 705] decided the issues with reference to the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for the purpose of granting of benefit of counting of 50% of the temporary services rendered by the Government employees.

¶39

The condition stipulated under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was also taken note by the Full Bench and therefore, the applicants State Government Authorities are bound to follow the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the case (cited supra ). This Court also directed the authorities to reconsider the issues with reference to the facts and circumstances and therefore, the authorities competent are empowered to consider the facts of each case and apply the principles laid down by the Full Bench and also the conditions stipulated under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and accordingly, take a decision on merits.

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶43

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error

¶44

apparent and after passing of the order in the Writ Petition, the Full bench considered the issues and passed a judgment and accordingly, the applicants / authorities are bound to follow the judgment of the Full Bench along with the conditions stipulated under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for the purpose of considering the cases of the respondents.

¶45

With these clarifications, these Review Applications stand

¶46

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶47

09.03.2023

¶48

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

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

¶51

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶52

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶53

Jeni

¶54

Review Application Nos.32 to 34 of 2022

¶55

09.03.2023

¶56

Page 5 of 5

¶57

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

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. v.Sudhahar Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. v.Sudhahar Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jessi Florence Vs Himachal Pradesh Horiticulture

M/S. Rajalakshmi Paper Vs Eh Government of Tamilnadu

K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) Vs the Union of India

M.Akber Hussain Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Jayachandran

R.Inderchand Vs Appellate Authority and