Dismissed

P.Selvadhas v. the Secretary

Madras HC1 Oct 2024WP(MD)/6548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the writ petition, the single judge held that a petitioner regularised after the statutory cut-off date is not entitled to pensionary benefits calculated by including 50% of pre-regularization service. The court relied on a Full Bench judgment and a Supreme Court decision upholding the same principle.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

P.Selvadhas Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

P.Selvadhas

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary,

¶11

Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,

¶12

Fort St. George,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Director of Town Panchayat,

¶15

Kuralagam,

¶16

Chennai – 600 108.

¶17

3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

¶18

Nagercoil,

¶19

Kanyakumari District.

¶20

4.The Executive Officer,

¶21

Karungal Selection Grade Panchayat,

¶22

Karungal,

¶23

Kanyakumari District.

¶24

: Respondents

¶25

1/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶28

PRAYER:

¶29

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in letter Na.Ka.No.151/2018/A1 dated 22.06.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay pension benefits after taking into account of 50% service period rendered prior to the petitioner's regularization with all monetary benefits.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karuppasamy

¶31

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Kameswaran

¶32

Government Advocate

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the fourth respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of pensionary benefits after taking into account the 50% of the services rendered by him prior to the regularisation of his service with all monetary benefits.

¶35

2. The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted by this Court in view of the settled law as held by the Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 03.12.2019 passed in W.A.Nos.

¶36

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

¶37

2/6

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶39

158 of 2016 batch and W.A.Nos.25 of 2017 batch. As per the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, it has been made clear that those Government servants who were appointed before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, before 01.04.2003 and absorbed into regular service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension are alone entitled to get pension.

¶40

3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to supra has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.08.2022 in S.L.P.No. 15406 of 2021.

¶41

4. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner was regularised into service only on 23.06.2006 after the cut off date and therefore, the question of granting pensionary benefits to him after taking into account the 50% of the services rendered by him prior to his date of regularisation will not arise. The respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's request under the impugned order. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶42

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

¶43

3/6

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶45

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There

¶46

shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

01.10.2024

¶48

Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR

¶49

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

¶50

4/6

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶52

¶53

1.The Secretary,

¶54

Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George,

¶55

Chennai – 600 009.

¶56

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam,

¶57

Chennai – 600 108.

¶58

3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,

¶59

Nagercoil,

¶60

Kanyakumari District.

¶61

4.The Executive Officer, Karungal Selection Grade Panchayat,

¶62

Karungal,

¶63

Kanyakumari District.

¶64

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

¶65

5/6

¶66

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶67

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶68

¶69

W.P.(MD)No.6548 of 2019

¶70

01.10.2024

¶71

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

¶72

6/6

P.Selvadhas v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Selvadhas v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sourashtra Kalvi Kuzhu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

B.Vellimalar, Vs Mother Theresa Womens

Ambrose Gladys Devapackiam Vs the Accountant General

A.Subramanian, Vs the Director of Elementary

A.Ponmalar Vs the Chairman

T.Ravichandran, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary