Allowed

M.Pushparaj v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Madras HC7 Jun 2024WP/8488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Tamil Nadu Housing Board employees sought counting of 50% of pre-regularisation NMR/daily-wage service towards pension, relying on G.O.(Ms).No.408 and prior orders in their favour. Entitlement was undisputed; the Board pleaded only financial disability. The court allowed the petition, recalculating pension with arrears limited to three years before filing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to count 50% of pre-regularisation service for pension, recalculate and pay arrears from March 2021 within 12 weeks.

M.Pushparaj Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.8488 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.9438 of 2024

¶7

M.Pushparaj 2. P.Mani 3. M.Ravi 4. A.Nathaniel Mathews 5. S.K.Gurusamy (a) S.Kuthuci Gurusamy 6. K.S.Subramanian 7. R.Panneer Selvam 8. R.Selvarani 9. K.Sironmony 10. A.J.Devarajan 11. E.Munusamy 12. C.Govindasamy 13. S.Arunachalam 14. K.Pakkirisamy 15. M.Marialouis 16. K.P.Vediappan 17. D.Lalitha ... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Represented by its Managing Director, CMDA Complex, E&C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

_____________ Page No. 1 of 10_

¶11

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandaums to direct the respondent to implement the benefits granted vide proceedings bearing No.PNT-1/34971/2012 dated 27.01.2023 to the petitioners to pay pension by taking into account 50% of their service rendered before their regularisation as pensionable service for calculation of pension with arrears from the date of their retirement with interest as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11746 of 2014 dated 03.11.2017 as confirmed by order dated 06.08.2022 in W.A.No.1857 of 2022.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.M.N.Sumathy

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.V.Logesh Standing Counsel for (TNHB)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Mr.V.Logesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶18

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct

¶19

the respondent to implement the benefits granted vide proceedings bearing No.PNT-1/34971/2012 dated 27.01.2023 to the petitioners to pay pension by

¶20

taking into account 50% of their service rendered before their regularization

¶21

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

¶22

_____________ Page No. 2 of 10_

¶23

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶24

as pensionable service for calculation of pension with arrears from the date of

¶25

their retirement with interest as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11746 of 2014 dated 03.11.2017 as confirmed by order dated 06.08.2022 in W.A.No.1857 of 2022.

¶26

The petitioners herein are the retired employees of the respondent Board (TNHB). They originally entered into service on daily wage basis as NMRs. Thereafter, their services were regularized and they are all now retired from service.

¶27

The particulars of their Date of entry into service, the Date of

¶28

Regularisation and the Date of Retirement are as under:-

¶29

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
S.No.	Petitioner Name	Post held	PPO. No	Date of entry into service as NMR	Date of Regularizati on	Date of Retirement
1.	M.Pushparaj	Assistant	3093	09.10.1974	09.05.1980	30.06.2009
2.	P.Mani	Junior Assistant	4157	23.04.1979	07.12.1988	30.09.2015
3.	M.Ravi	Junior Assistant	4414	26.10.1984	11.01.1990	15.12.2017
4.	A.Nathaniel Mathews	Junior Assistant	3728	05.07.1982	07.12.1988	31.12.2012
5.	S.K.Gurusamy	Assistant			28.02.1991	31.05.2019

¶30

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

¶31

_____________ Page No. 3 of 10_

¶32

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶33

6.	K.S.Subramanian	Mazdoor		June 1981	07.12.1988	30.06.2003
7.	R.Panneer Selvam	O.A	3987	22.03.1985	04.08.1990	30.06.2014
8.	R.Selvarani	Daffathar	4677	11.1985	25.03.1991	31.05.2020
9.	K.Sironmani	Assistant	4126	29.07.1980	07.12.1988	31.05.2015
10.	A.J.Devarajan	W.A	4353	05.11.1984	05.12.1989	31.05.2017
11.	E.Munuswamy	W.A	3845	20.09.1980	07.12.1988	30.09.2013
12.	C.Govindaswamy	W.A	2969	20.06.1979	07.10.1988	30.03.2009
13.	S.Arunachalam	J.A	3934	17.07.1982	07.12.1988	30.04.2013
14.	K.Pakkirisamy	Watch man	4075	08.12.1978	07.12.1988	30.04.2013
15.	M.Marialouis	J.A	3999	12.10.1979	07.12.1988	30.09.2012
16.	K.P.Vediyappan	P.O	3899	12.10.1979	07.12.1988	31.12.2013
17.	D.Lalitha	Sweeper	4594	01.09.1981	01.05.1991	30.06.2019

¶34

The prayer of the petitioners is to count 50% of the said services

¶35

prior to the date of regularization for the purposes of pension. The case of the petitioners is that the Government itself has extended the benefit in G.O.(Ms).No.408 dated 25.08.2009. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has also clarified that the employees who have been regularized before 01.04.2003 are entitled for counting 50% of benefits.

¶36

More specifically, earlier this Court by an Order dated 03.11.2017 in W.P.No.11746 of 2013 had granted relief to the employees by directing the respondents to count half of the services rendered by the petitioners/employees. Pursuant to the Order dated 03.11.2017 in W.P.No.11746 of 2013, the respondent Board preferred an appeal in

¶37

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

¶38

Page No. 4 of 10

¶39

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶40

W.A.No.1857 of 2022, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated 16.08.2022 in W.A.No.1857 of 2022. The petitioners herein also similarly situated as that of the said petitioners/employees. Hence the writ petition.

¶41

The writ petition is resisted by the respondent by filing a counter

¶42

affidavit. It is relevant to extract Paragraph 4 to 7 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:-

¶43

“4. It is respectfully submitted that the subject matter was placed before the Board (of Directors), in its meeting held on 28.02.2013 for adopting the G.O. The Board (of Directors) in its Resolution No.7.06, dated 28.02.2013 resolved as follows:-

¶44

“muR Miz vz;/ 408, epjpj; (Xa;t{jpak;) Jiw. ehs;/ 25.08.2009 y; mwptpj;Js;s murg;gzpapy; tiuaWf;fg;glhj gzp (Non-Provincialised Service) kw;Wk; jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; gzpg[upe;j fhyj;jpy; ghjpia (50%) Kiwahd gzpfhyj;Jld; nru;j;J Xa;t{jpaj;jpw;F vLj;Jf;bfhs;tJ vd;w muR Mizapid thupa CHpau;fSk; gadila[k; tifapy; eilKiwg;gLj;J thupak; xg;g[jy; mspj;jJ”

¶45

5. it is respectfully submitted that the Respondent/Board had issued necessary instructions vide its Proceeding No.PNT1/34971/2012, dated 07.03.2013 to extend the benefits to the eligible employees of the TNHB. However, the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, in his letter

¶46

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

¶47

Page No. 5 of 10

¶48

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶49

No.Na.Ka.No.207/m/2012, dated 01.04.2013 had observed that the above G.O. may be implemented after seeking clarification from the Government. Accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Government, which was rejected by the Government, in their Letter.No.12805/Hg1(2)/2013-2, H & UD Dept, dated 31.07.2013.

¶50

6. It is respectfully submitted that Thiru.R.Paneerselvam & 21 other (ex-employees of the Respondent/Board) filed W.P.No.11746 of 2014, before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for quashing the aforesaid letter and consequently direct the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioners by taking into account 50% of their service rendered before their regularization as pensionable service for calculation of pension with arrears from the date of their retirement. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras allowed the Writ Petition, in its order dated 03.11.2017. In pursuance, the respondent complied with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, made in W.P.No.11746 of 2014, on 03.11.2017 and extended the benefit of counting 50% of service for retirement benefits in respect of the non-provincialised service etc. to Thiru.R.Paneerselvam & 21 others, vide its proceedings No.PNT-1/34971/2012, dated 27.01.2023.

¶51

7. It is respectfully submitted that subsequently another batch of employees consisting of Tmt.Buelah Hepsibah and 7 others had filed W.P.No.31187 of 2023 with similar prayers for implementing the above G.O. Accordingly, the benefit of counting 50% of past services before regularisation was extended to the petitioner vide proceedings No.PNT4/18307/2023, dated 15.03.2024.”

¶52

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

¶53

_____________ Page No. 6 of 10_

¶54

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶55

Thus, it can be seen that as far as entitlement of the petitioners are concerned, it is not disputed. The respondent is also not distinguishing the case of the petitioners from the earlier Orders of this Court. The only ground which is pleaded is the financial disability. When the petitioners are entitled to as per law then financial difficulty cannot be pleaded as a ground to deny them the benefit.

¶56

By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri.M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs vs. The State of Goa and Another , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that even though this Court earlier by an order dated 03.11.2017 in W.P.No.11746 of 2004 granted relief only by counting half the services of the petitioners/employees, the respondent themselves have paid the arrears to the connected petitioners/employees.

¶58

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

¶59

_____________ Page No. 7 of 10_

¶60

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶61

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel (TNHB) for the respondent.

¶62

The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri.M.L.Patil

¶63

(Dead) Through LRs vs. The State of Goa and Another cited supra does not deal with the factual situation like this when the petitioners are superannuated only from service in the year 2009-2010 etc.

¶64

It can be seen that the petitioners like their counterparts did not even approach this Court and now only they are approaching the Court. Therefore, this Court has to balance the interests. In matter of pay, since everyday gives rise to continuing cause of actions, the petitioner cannot be dis-entitled for the relief on the ground of delay. However, as far as the matter of arrears is concerned, as far as the matter of arrears is concerned, this Court could restrict the same.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 8 of 10_

¶66

W.P.No.8488 of 2024

¶67

In view thereof the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶68

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:-

¶69

i. The respondent is directed to consider the case of each of the petitioner and count 50% of their services prior to the date of regularization from the date of entry into services for the purpose of pension and accordingly recalculate the pension of the petitioners;

¶70

ii. As far as arrears are concerned, same shall be payable from three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., from March 2021 onwards;

¶71