Dismissed¶35

V.Pandian v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Jul 2026WP/8440/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

revised pension; retirement benefits; pension arrears; Panchayat Clerk; counting 50% service; G.O.Ms.No.77; Rural Development (PA-4) Department; patta 4(a) and (b); certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; writ petitions dismissed; A. Chidambaram; W.A.No.1569 of 2026; State of Tamil Nadu; Division Bench judgement; Single Judge orders set aside; Madras High Court; T. Vinod Kumar; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

As counsel on both sides agreed that these writ petitions involve a question similar to that considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in A. Chidambaram (supra), this Court held that the case of the petitioners is also covered by that decision, wherein the orders of the learned Single Judges were set aside by allowing the State's batch of writ appeals. ¶33

V.Pandian Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions should be allowed, i.e., whether the modification issued in patta 4(a) and (b) of G.O.Ms.No.77 Rural Development (PA-4) Department dated 12.07.2013 should be quashed and the respondents directed to sanction revised pension and other retirement benefits counting 50% of the petitioners' service as Panchayat Clerk, with arrears and interest.

¶22

Court's answer

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above and for the reasons alike as set out in A. Chidambaram (supra), the present writ petitions fail and are dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, T. Vinod Kumar J., 20-07-2026): Four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.77 Rural Development (PA-4) Department dated 12.07.2013 insofar as the modification issued in patta 4(a) and (b) of the said G.O., and to direct sanction of revised pension and other retirement benefits counting 50% of service rendered as Panchayat Clerk (service periods spanning 08.05.1981 to 28.09.1995 across the four petitioners), with arrears of difference in pension and other monetary benefits with interest. When taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate drew attention to the common judgement of an Hon'ble Division Bench in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Chidambaram (W.A.No.1569 of 2026 etc., batch, decided 23.06.2026), by which various orders of Co-ordinate Bench Single Judges in writ petitions on the similar issue were set aside on the State's writ appeals. Counsel on both sides agreeing the present petitions involved a similar question, the Single Judge held the petitioners' case covered by that decision and, for the reasons alike as set out therein, dismissed the writ petitions with no order as to costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP Nos.8953, 8959, 8964 & 8971 of 2019).

¶1

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019 and WMP Nos.8953, 8959, 8964 & 8971 of 2019

¶6

N. Mani S/o. A. Nainappan, No.46/36, Tahsildar Street, Suvalpet, Arakkonam - 631001 Vellore District.

¶7

.. Petitioner in WP.8430/2019

¶8

A.G. Venkatesan S/o. A.G.Gopalakrishnan, No.32A, Sandhaipettai I Street, Shollingar Road, Pallipattu Town, Thiruvallur District.

¶9

.. Petitioner in WP.8435/2019

¶10

V.Pandian S/o. P.Veerasamy, No.55, Sanadhi Street, Maduranthagam - 603 306 Kancheepuram District.

¶11

.. Petitioner in WP.8440/2019

¶12

T.Natarajan S/o. Thirumalai, No.52, Periyalvar Street, Sri Eri Ramsai Nagar, Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District. .. Petitioner in WP.8446/2019

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-9.

¶15

Director,

¶16

Commissionerate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Chennai-15

¶17

__________ Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019

¶20

3. District Collector Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶21

..Respondents (in all cases)

¶22

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No.77 Rural Development (PA-4) Department, dated 12.07.2013 insofar as the modification issued in patta 4(a) and (b) of the said G.O. and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith sanction revised pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioners herein by counting 50% of the service rendered by the petitioners herein in the post of Panchayat Clerk during 01.07.1982 to 28.09.1995, 08.05.1981 to 13.07.1993, 21.09.1982 to 31.12.1990 and 01.10.1983 to 31.12.1990 respectively, and pay arrears of difference in pension and other monetary benefits with due interest.

¶23

Appearance in all cases:

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr. C.P. Goutham, Government Advocate

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through video

¶27

conferencing mode and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, and perused the records.

¶28

When these writ petitions are taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court, the common judgement passed by an Hon’ble Division

¶29

Page2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019

¶32

Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Chidambaram (W.A.No.1569 of 2026 etc., batch, decided on 23.06.2026) by which, various orders passed on different dates by various Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in various writ petitions involving the similar issue as involved in the present writ petitions, were set aside.

¶33

Without delving into details of the issue involved in these writ petitions, as the counsels appearing on both sides agree that the present writ petitions also involve a similar question, which had been considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in A. Chidambaram ( supra ), wherein the orders of the learned Single Judges were set aside by allowing the aforesaid batch of writ appeals preferred by the respondents/State, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is also covered by the aforesaid decision in A. Chidambaram ( supra ).

¶34

In view of the above and for the reasons alike as set out in A. Chidambaram (supra), the present writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶35

20-07-2026

¶36

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KLT

¶37

__________ Page3 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

WP Nos.8430, 8435, 8440 & 8446 of 2019

¶40

¶41