Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu v. a.Arumugam

Madras HC18 Jul 2024WA(MD)/862/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal filed by the State challenging a single judge order granting retrospective payment of salary benefits and pensionary dues to an Assistant Manager. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant must work out pension benefits based on the lower court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no costs awarded; Order of Single Judge reaffirmed requiring the State to calculate and pay pensionary benefits as directed below.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs a.Arumugam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 18/07/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

Justice N.SESHASAYEE and Justice P.VADAMALAI

¶6

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.4777 of 2020

¶7

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent No.1

¶8

¶9

1.A.Arumugam ... 1^st respondent/Petitioner

¶10

2.The Convener, Career Planning Committee Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶11

3.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem Division II) Limited, 12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem.

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶15

4.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, New Railway Station Road, Kumbakona - 612 001. ... Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 2 to 4

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.02.2020 in WP(MD) No.8427 of 2019.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Mr.SC.Herold Singh for R2 Mr.K.Ramaiah for R3 and R4

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J.)

¶20

This writ appeal is directed by the first respondent in W.P(MD)No.8427 of 2019 challenging the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 13.02.2020.

¶21

The factual background, under which this appeal arises, may now be stated:

¶22

a) On 15.04.1989, the first respondent herein was appointed as an

¶23

Assistant Engineer in the Transport Department. On 13.01.1995,

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶27

he was promoted as Assistant Manager. G.O.Ms.No.761, Transport (committee) Department, dated 30.04.1993 came to be introduced by the Government, by which, those Assistant Managers, who were stuck in the same post for six years and more, were given the same scale of pay as Deputy Managers. Indeed they will be termed as selection grade Assistant Managers and would be brought to the same scale of pay as the Deputy Managers and that both these posts are convertible in terms of G.O.Ms.No.761 dated 30.04.1993;

¶28

(b) The first respondent herein has become eligible to be conferred with the benefit under the said G.O., on and from 13.01.2001. However, he was actually given the same, some two years later, to be precise, on 13.01.2003. Hence, the first respondent moved this Court in WP(MD)No.8427/2019 to give him the benefits retrospectively from 07.03.2001. This order is now challenged by the Government in this appeal.

¶29

Heard both sides. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there

¶30

are other set of facts that involve the validity of

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶34

G.O.(Ms)No.196 Transport (D) Department, dated 10.08.2017 and hence, the first respondent's case should not be considered. At any rate, the first respondent still could not be granted any benefit in view of G.O.(D)No.107 Transport(D) Department dated 05.07.2006, which prescribes procedure for promotion.

¶35

G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 05.07.2006 cannot come in the way for two reasons:

¶36

a) That the first respondent has become entitled to be considered for promotion as a Selection Grade Assistant Manager at least five years prior to the date on which the Government came out with G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 05.07.2006 and the Government order can never be given retrospective effect;

¶37

b) This Court is informed that notwithstanding G.O.Ms.No.107 dated

¶38

05.07.2006, no promotion was ever made based on the same.

¶39

The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is due to retire on 31.07.2024. Therefore, the appellant is required to work out all his pensionary benefits, based on the present

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶43

judgment and pay them to him, as and when he superannuates, at any rate, not later than eight weeks after his superannuation. This direction will apply only for calculating his arrears of salary based on any notional promotion that he may have to be given and also for determining his pension and will not be applicable to payment of his EPF as well as gratuity.

¶44

In view of this, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶45

(N.S.S.,J.) (P.V.M.,J.) 18.07.2024

¶46

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶47

RR/PM

¶48

To The Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George Chennai.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

WA(MD). No.862 of 2020

¶52

N.SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶53

¶54

WA.(MD)No.862 of 2020

¶55

18.07.2024

¶56

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

¶57

6/6

The State of Tamilnadu v. a.Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. a.Arumugam

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 Branch Manager Vs Kalayarasi

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Vs P.Manisekaran, S/o.P.Packiam

M.Janet Amala Arul Jothi Vs Samuel Raj

Minor Prince Solomon, Vs Filoma, W/O.Martin Charles

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs George Thomas

The Managing Director Vs a.Arumugam