Disposed

R.Swaminathan(Ppo No. 12909), v. The Chairman

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WP/10302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a letter seeking recovery/adjustment of excess gratuity from his pension. Considering the respondents' stance that the adjustment is only operational upon consent and beneficial to the petitioner under the central government pay scheme, the court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition subject to the petitioner's option to opt for the central government definition of pa

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition; direction issued to petitioner to exercise the option for central government pay definition and intimate to respondents.

R.Swaminathan(Ppo No. 12909), Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.10281 of 2023

¶7

R.Swaminathan S/o.B.Raju

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶11

2.The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the pension recovery letters to the petitioner in Sr.AO(Pension)/ALC/2017/F dated 06.01.2018 on the file of second respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan *****

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated

¶20

06.01.2018, which according to the petitioner is seeking to recover certain amounts from the petitioner.

¶21

2. Heard Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel for petitioner and

¶22

Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for respondents.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Tally

¶24

Clerk, CHD, Traffic and he retired from service on 31.05.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent, through the impugned letter dated 06.01.2018, started recovering from the pension amount of the petitioner from January 2018 onwards every month in equal instalments. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶25

A similar writ petition was filed in W.P.No.10878 of 2018

¶26

and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.02.2024.

¶27

The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023

¶31

"2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the pensioners were given options and the method they choose is adopted by the respondent. For the excess amount of gratuity that is already paid is adjusted with the pension payment to bring parity with all those who have been under central government definition of pay. There is no recovery or repayment, in that sense carried out, but only an adjustment of excess gratuity under the old scheme.

¶32

Further, the pensioners stand benefitted and it will be operated only with their consent. It is also further averred that the order impugned is in favour of the petitioner and the central government of pay would be more beneficial to the petitioner. It is further averred that the order impugned is in favour of the petitioner and the central government definition of pay would be more beneficial to the petitioner.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. Placing the stand of the respondents made in their counter affidavit on record, permission is granted to withdraw this writ petition."

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶35

will opt under the Central Government pay, which will be more beneficial to the petitioner.

¶36

In the light of the above submission, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to specifically exercise the said option and intimate the same to the Chennai Port Trust and on receipt of the same,

¶37

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

¶40

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023

¶41

¶42

the respondents shall deal with the said option and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶44

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

21.08.2024

¶46

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm

¶47

To 1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶48

2.The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶49

Writ Petition No.10302 of 2023

¶50

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

¶51

4/4

R.Swaminathan(Ppo No. 12909), v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Swaminathan(Ppo No. 12909), v. The Chairman

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

N.Suresh Babu Vs The Joint Registrar

M.Chella Durai (Deceased), Vs The chief Education officer

Dr.R.Rakkiyappan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Rose Mary Vs Government of Tamilnadu

D.Raghavendra Nath Vs The Commissioner

U.R.Dhavamani Vs The Additional Registrar of