Pre-2006 retirees challenged G.O.Ms.No.235 granting them only 40% fitment weightage in pension revision, seeking parity with post-2006 retirees. Following this Court's earlier decision in V.Rajendran upholding the cut-off date as validly fixed for Pay Commission implementation, the writ petition was dismissed.
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.P.No.24052 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.No.24052 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
...Petitioners
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (PC) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the relating to the G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and quash (Para 2(ii)(d) thereof in so far as it grant only 40% fitment weightage to retirees before 01.01.2006 and to consequently direct the respondent to fix the pension of the Pre 01.01.2006 retirees on par with post 01.01.2006 retirees by allowing them revised pension at 50% of Grade Pay in the light of the OM F.No.38/37/08-P & PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 and to revise the pension to the members of the Petitioners Association and pay the same along with arrears from 01.01.2006.
For petitioners : Mr.R.Sreedharan For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Ganesan, Government Advocate
Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
O RDER
The above writ petition is filed to call for the records of the
relating to the G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and quash (Para 2(ii)(d) thereof in so far as it grant only 40% fitment weightage to retirees before 01.01.2006 and to consequently direct the respondents to fix the pension of the Pre 01.01.2006 retirees on par with post 01.01.2006 retirees by allowing them revised pension at 50% of Grade Pay in the light of the OM F.No.38/37/08-P & PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 and to revise the pension to the members of the Petitioners Association and pay the same along with arrears from 01.01.2006.
“28......The only point to be adjudicated is that whether the cut-off date is fixed under
Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
capricious manner or otherwise. In the case on hand, the cut-off date is fixed, as the date fixed for the purpose of implementing the Pay Commission recommendations, which cannot be construed as capricious or otherwise. The power of the State in respect of fixing the cut-off date is undoubtedly clear by virtue of the provisions in Seventh Schedule, State List II, Entry 42 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the arguments that the cut-off date to be removed and all the pensioners are to be granted the benefit extended to the Central Government pensioners deserves no merit consideration.
29. In view of the above discussions, the claim set out by the writ petitioners in this regard deserves no consideration and accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
In the light of the above judgment, this writ petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. stands closed. No costs.
10.07.2024
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa
To
Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssa
W.P.No.24052 of 2015
10.07.2024
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-01.01.2006 retirees are entitled to pension fixed at 50% of Grade Pay on par with post-01.01.2006 retirees, instead of the 40% fitment weightage under G.O.Ms.No.235.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.Rajendran and others vs. State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶2
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Vimalachandran and 26 others (members of Petitioners Association)
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (PC) Department
The District Treasury Officer, Nagapattinam
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
