BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17/07/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A(MD) No.335 of 2007 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Directorate, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2.The Director of Rural Development, Rural Development Directorate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15. 3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs K.Sampath ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.4921 of 2006 dated 04.09.2006. !For Appellants ... Mr.D.Gandhiraj Govt. Advocate ^For Respondents ... Mr.J.Nishabanu :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by
ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner as against the order
of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.4921 of 2006 dated
04.09.2006.
2. The respondent/petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.4921 of 2006, praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of
the first respondent therein in connection with the order passed by him in his
proceedings Lt.No.36439/E4/2005 dated 12.12.2005 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to count half of the non-provincialised service of the
petitioner from 01.03.1985 to 01.01.2000 for the purpose of repayment of all the
terminal benefits including the commutation of pension, pension arrears and
monthly pension with 18% interest per annum.
3. The first respondent in the writ petition passed the impugned order in
letter No.36439/E4/2005, dated 12.12.2005 stating that G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance
(Pension) Department, dated 14.02.1996, cannot be applied in favour of the
petitioner in view of the Government Letter No.10973/Pension/2000-1, Finance
Department, dated 04.10.2000, wherein it is clarified that the service rendered
under the Village Panchayat Boards cannot be counted as qualifying service for
the purpose of calculating pension.
4. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 04.09.2006, setting aside
the impugned order dated 12.12.2005 which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.437 Finance
(Pension) Department, dated 23.06.1988, wherein it is extended to the employees
in the local bodies also, and directing the respondents to sanction pension to
the petitioner and to pay the same within a period of two months and to pay the
arrears of pension from 01.06.2005 pay within three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and the
learned Counsel for the respondent and this Court noticed the rival contentions
put forth on either side and perused the records available including the order
of the learned Single Judge.
6. The learned Single Judge after considering the authorities relied on,
allowed the writ petition. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge.
7. In fine, there is no merit in this writ appeal and accordingly, the
same is dismissed. No costs.
rsb