Allowed

M.Selvanathan v. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen

Madras HC28 Jul 2023WP/17438/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the stopping of medical allowance (8% of basic+DA) and recovery order by the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation. The Court held the unilateral cessation illegal per appointment terms and quashed the impugned minutes.

What did the court decide?

Minutes of the 113th Board meeting dated 29.01.2013 and the decision of the 114th Board meeting dated 29.04.2013 quashed; Writ Petition allowed.

M.Selvanathan Vs Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P. No.17438 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013

¶7

1.M.Selvanathan 2.P.Jayaseelan 3.T.Duraian 4.K.Baskar 5.G.Thirunavukarasu 6.L.Selvadurai 7.N.Senthil Subramanian 8.A.Jagadeesan 9.K.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioners Vs

¶8

Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited Rep.by its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, No.2, West Mada Street, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-600 115 ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the minutes of the 113^th Board meeting dated 29.01.2013 and the consequential decision taken in 114^th Board meeting on 29.04.2013 in sofar it relates to the decision to stop medical allowance paid to petitioners @ 8% per month w.e.f. 01.11.2012

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶11

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶12

and to recover the medical allowance already paid to the petitioners, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, descriminatory and consequently direct the respondent to pay 8% of the basic and DA as medical allowance together with arrears from November 2012 with 18% interest per annum from November 2012 till the date of payment.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Minutes of the

¶16

113 th Board meeting dated 29.01.2013 and its consequential decision taken in the 114 th Board meeting dated 29.04.2013 in sofar it relates to

¶17

the decision to stop medical allowance paid to the petitioners at the rate of 8% per month with effect from 01.11.2012 and also ordered to recover the same.

¶18

2. The petitioners were working in the respondent

¶19

Corporation in various posts on permanent basis relating to the administration of the respondent. The respondent Corporation called the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited which was formed by

¶20

the Government of Tamil Nadu in order to verify that Ex-Servicemen are

¶21

provided employment in various Government and Public Section

¶22

organizations. As per the terms of their appointment, the respondent 2/8

¶23

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

¶24

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶25

agreed to pay 8% of their basic and dearness allowance as medical allowance in lieu of ESI. Since, the respondent Corporation was exempted from ESI on condition that they will continue the existing benefits. From the date exemption under the ESI, they are paid 8% of the basic and dearness allowance as medical allowance. However, by the Minutes of the 113 th Board meeting dated 29.01.2013, the respondent stopped paying them medical allowance of Rs.1344/- to Rs.3796/- per month instead they are started giving them only Rs.100/- per month as medical allowance, which is not 8% of the basic and dearness allowance.

¶26

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶27

that they were not given any notice before stoppage of medical allowance. At the time of their appointment to their respective posts it is categorically stated that the petitioners will be on the pay scale of their respective post plus other statutory benefits i.e., Bonus, PF, Gratuity, leave as per State Government Rules in force and medical allowance of 8% on basic pay and dearness allowance. Subsequently, Government orders were passed only in respect of pension, PF, gratuity and leave salary. The medical allowance of 8% basic and dearness allowance are

¶28

separately agreed by the respondent and as such, it cannot be denied that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶29

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶30

too without any notice to the employees. That apart, they also ordered to recover the medical allowance paid to the petitioners by 60 monthly instalments.

¶31

4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent revealed that

¶32

the petitioners are not workmen and therefore, the plea unilateral alteration will not be applicable to them. The impugned decision is applicable only in respect of the regular employees of the respondent and the same does not apply to ex-servicemen, who have deputed by the respondent under contracts for security services. It was noticed during the 113 th Board meeting of the respondent that in other Public Sector Undertakings, payment of medical allowance was limited to the rate of Rs.100/- per month as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.10 Finance (Pay Cell ) Department, dated 13.01.2009. Accordingly, it was decided to stop the medical allowance being paid at 8% the medical allowance with effect from 01.11.2012 and restricted the benefit of medical allowance at the rate of Rs.100/- per month to the regular employees of the respondent. In the 114 th meeting decided to recover the amounts paid till October 2012 from their inception into the respondent Corporation. He further submitted that now the petitioners 1 to 5 and 7 & 8 are already attained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶33

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶34

their age of superannuation and permitted to retire from service. The 6 th petitioner alone is now working in the respondent Corporation. The 9 th petitioner already died on 29.04.2016.

¶35

5. In pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, all the petitioners were paid medical allowance till their attainment of superannuation. There was also no recovery from the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were not issued with any notice before passing the impugned resolution in the 113 th meeting, in respect of stoppage of medical allowance paid at 8% and also recovered the excess amount paid to them.

¶36

6. On perusal of the appointment orders issued to the petitioners, it is clear from the terms and conditions that they will be on the pay scale of their respective post and other statutory benefits viz., pension, PF, gratuity and leave as per State Government Rules in force and medical allowance of 8% on basic pay and dearness allowance. Therefore, once agreed to pay the medical allowance that too other than the State Government Rules, the respondent cannot deviate its decision

¶37

not to pay any medical allowance, since at the time of their appointment, 5/8

¶38

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

¶39

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶40

the respondent agreed to pay medical allowance at 8% of their basic and dearness allowance, only on condition that the petitioners were joined in their respective post of the respondent, all of a sudden without any notice to the petitioners, the respondent cannot stop the medical allowance as per the Government order. Insofar as the 113 th meeting it relates to the decision to stop medical allowance paid to the petitioners at 8% per month with effect from 01.11.2012 is illegal and the next resolution dated 29.04.2013 to recover the medical allowance, which is already paid by the petitioners inception till October 2012 and it is liable to be set aside.

¶41

7. Accordingly, the Minutes of 113 th Board meeting dated 29.01.2013 and its consequential decision taken in the 114 th Board meeting dated 29.04.2013 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

28.07.2023

¶43

Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

6/8

¶47

WP.No.17438 of 2013

¶48

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited, No.2, West Mada Street, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-600 115

¶49

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶50

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

7/8

WP.No.17438 of 2013

Lpp

W.P. No.17438 of 2013

¶55

and M.P.No.2 of 2013

¶56

28.07.2023

¶57

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

¶58

8/8

M.Selvanathan v. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvanathan v. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer

D.Chitrakala, Vs the District Collector

Tamil Nadu High - Higher Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Alphonse, W/o Antonyraj, Vs The Principal Secretary

P.Thennarasu, Vs the Member Secretary

K.Thangamani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu