Dismissed

Sounthara Raj, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC7 Jul 2023WP(MD)/13394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for counting half of his service as pensionable qualifying service in the post of Forest Watcher. The court held that a Full Bench decision, confirmed by the Supreme Court, precluded such counting, thereby failing the petition. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition for regularization of service on a dif

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition on a different cause of action regarding regularization of service.

Sounthara Raj, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

Sounthara Raj

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶11

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶12

3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division/Extention, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

4.The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai-18. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents from 1 to 3, to conduct the half of the service rendered by the petitioner as a social forestry

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

¶18

worker from 01.02.1984 to 06.08.2009 along with the regular service as Plot Watcher from 07.08.2009 to 31.03.2019 as a qualifying service and send the revised pension proposal to the fourth respondent and to further direct the fourth respondent to sanction the eligible pension and all other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Chandrasekar For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.John Rajadurai Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The matter is relating to counting of 50% of service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the post of Forest Watcher.

¶22

2.The learned counsel appearing on either side cannot deny the fact that the

¶23

matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Full Bench in and by which, the service can no longer be counted and that the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is bound to fail.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

¶27

3.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants liberty to file a fresh writ petition in respect of grant of regularisation from an anterior date.

¶28

4.In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, with

¶29

liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition on a different cause of action, if he is still chooses to. No costs.

¶30

07.07.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sji

¶32

¶33

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶34

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶35

3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division/Extention, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

¶39

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

¶40

sji

¶41

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2019

¶42

DATED : 07.07.2023

¶43

4/4

¶44

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

Sounthara Raj, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sounthara Raj, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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.Santhosh, Vs the Chairman and Managing

Sathiyadoss H.T Vs the Director General of Police

V.Rajendran Vs the Superintending Engineer

R.Nalini, Vs the Director of School

V.Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.a.Rajarathinam Vs the Principal Sec. to Govt.