Review application challenging a writ judgment that granted retiral benefits and pension arrears but denied actual pay arrears and interest. The court held the grounds were appeal-like grievances against a conscious decision, no error on the face of the record was shown, and dismissed the condone-delay petition and the review at the SR stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023 against W.P.No.18071 of 2009
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY,J.
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of 230
days in filing the review application.
”21. However, it is seen that the petitioner has since superannuated from service. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:
(ii)The respondents are directed to re-work the
Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023
pay and allowances of the petitioner as if the order of with-holding of increments, was not there and accordingly determine his last drawn pay and retiral benefits.
(iii)The petitioner however, will not be entitled to actual arrears of pay till the date of service, but he will be entitled to arrears on the retiral benefits and pension from the date of superannuation on such revised pay.
Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023
decision of this court. In that case, filing a review application is not a remedy, since no ground of review is made out. Thus, W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 stands dismissed. Consequently, the review application also stands dismissed at the SR stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.
05.06.2024
drm
Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARHY,J.
(drm)
W.M.P.No.8537 of 2023 in Rev.Aplw.SR.No.24622 of 2023 against W.P.No.18071 of 2009
05.06.2024
Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 230 days in filing the review application should be condoned.
Whether grounds raised constitute reviewable error apparent on the face of the record.
Petitioner in W.P.No.18071 of 2009
D. Bharatha Chakravarhy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
