Allowed

S.Amaravathi v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC4 Dec 2024WA(MD)/305/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow of a night watchman employed for 18 years without regularisation sought notional regularisation and death benefits after authorities refused relief. The Division Bench directed notional regularisation of his services from the date of eligibility, with family pension and benefits settled within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

Notional regularisation of deceased husband's services from date of eligibility; family pension and other benefits to be determined and settled within sixteen weeks.

S.Amaravathi Vs the Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

1 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

¶8

W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶9

S.Amaravathi ... Appellant / Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Cheppakkam,

¶14

Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur – 639 007. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 01.03.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2668 of 2021 on the file of this Court by allowing the writ appeal.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.R.Lakshmanan For Respondents : Mr.K.Selvaganesan, Additional Government Pleader. * * *

¶18

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

¶19

2 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

One Govindarajan, S/o.Oman was sponsored by the

¶24

Employment Exchange for appointment as night watchman in the office of the Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram. The P.A.(General) to the District Collector, Karur vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A3.5653/99 dated 26.06.2000 appointed the said Govindarajan as night watchman. It is stated that he was placed in time scale of pay. He passed away on 27.09.2018. Only thereafter, his wife, the appellant herein realised that the services of her husband were not even regularised. She therefore submitted representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Special Cell seeking retirement and other benefits. Her representation was forwarded to the District Collector, Karur. The District Collector informed the petitioner vide communication dated 11.02.2020 that since her husband's services have not been regularised, the question of conferring any benefit will not arise at all. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD)No.2668 of 2021. She also sought compassionate appointment. The petitioner could not get any relief. The writ petition was disposed of vide

¶25

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

¶26

3 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶27

order dated 01.03.2022 in the following terms:-

¶28

“3.The present writ petition also filed seeking the similar prayer, but, orally the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the terminal benefits are not paid. However, the husband of the petitioner was not working as a regular Government employee, as his services were not regularized. If at all any benefit due in respect of the non regularized employee paid to the petitioner, the said benefits shall be settled in favour of the petitioner as early as possible.”

¶29

Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶30

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made it clear that the appellant is not seeking compassionate appointment. She would be satisfied if the services of her husband are notionally regularised and the benefits payable to the petitioner are settled.

¶31

5.We are clearly of the view that the petitioner has made out a clear

¶32

case for grant of relief. Her husband did not enter the service through back door. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He had served the Department for more than 18 years. We fail to understand as to

¶33

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

¶34

4 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶35

how the services of a regularly appointed person was not regularised for over 18 years. We therefore direct the first respondent to notionally regularise the services of O.Govindarajan, the husband of the appellant herein from the date he was eligible. The benefits payable to the appellant including Family Pension shall also be appropriately determined and settled within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and this writ appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶36

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R. POORNIMA, J.) 4^th December 2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶38

To:

¶39

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Dept, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶40

The Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Cheppakkam, Chennai – 600 005.

¶41

The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur – 639 007.

¶42

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

¶43

5 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶45

AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶46

PMU

¶47

W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶48

04.12.2024

¶49

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

¶50

6 W.A.(MD)No.305 of 2022

¶51

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

S.Amaravathi v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Amaravathi v. the Principal Secretary

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

Prabha Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

R.Rajaselvan Vs Gagandeep Singh Bedi IAS

Raja Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Vinish Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Muthumani Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

S.Jeyalakshmi Vs the Chief Manager(Hr)