Dismissed

K.Karuppiah v. the Secretary

Madras HC23 Oct 2024WP(MD)/9063/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of services for Plot Watchers along with pension benefits. The court held that as petitioners were absorbed after 01.04.2003, they are not entitled to half past service for pension purposes per settled law.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus seeking regularization of services and consequential benefits to petitioners was not granted.

K.Karuppiah Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶7

1.K.Karuppiah

¶8

2.A.Murugan

¶9

3.S.Karuppasamy

¶10

4.Singaraj ... Petitioners

¶11

-vs-

¶12

1.The Secretary Environmental and Forest Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶13

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Saidapet, Chennai-600 015 ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners by taking into account of seniority and qualification on par with their juniors in the light of the orders passed in WP.No.41099 of 2015 dated 05.01.2016 and confer all consequential benefits on the basis of the representation dated 20.03.2019.

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by taking into account their seniority and qualification on par with their juniors in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.41099 of 2015 dated 05.01.2016 and confer all consequential benefits to them.

¶21

2. All the petitioners claim that since they have been working as Plot Watchers on temporary daily wage basis from the years 1981 and 1982, their services have to be treated on par with their juniors, despite the fact that the services of their juniors were regularized prior in point of time to that of the petitioners.

¶22

3. The issue raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is no longer res integra , in view of the fact that the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamilnadu and others vs.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶26

R.Kaliyamoorthy , reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 , had allowed the writ appeal filed by the State by holding that those, who have been absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003, will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.

¶27

4. In the case on hand, admittedly, all the petitioners were absorbed into the respondents' service only after 01.04.2003 and therefore, as per the well settled law, they are not entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.

¶28

5. For the foregoing reasons, the mandamus sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted by this Court as there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶29

23.10.2024

¶30

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

¶31

krk

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The Secretary,

¶37

Environmental and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶38

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶42

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶43

krk

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.9063 of 2019

¶45

23.10.2024

¶46

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶47

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

K.Karuppiah v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karuppiah v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Krishnan Vs Dinesh Ponraj Oliver

P.Venkataraman Vs J.Kumaragurubaran

Venkatraman.v Vs the Secretary to Govt

Abraham Selvaraj Vs the Director of School

K.Adaikkalam, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

M.Prakash Vs a.Karthick