{"id":166910,"date":"2006-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006"},"modified":"2015-05-22T21:01:53","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T15:31:53","slug":"s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 23\/03\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.24861 of 2005\n\nS. Chockalingam                        ...             Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     Government of Tamil Nadu,\n        rep.by its Deputy Secretary,\n        Labour and Employment (T-2) Department,\n        Secretariat,\n        Chennai-9.\n\n2.      The Principal,\n        Government Industrial Training Institute,\n        Karaikudi-5,\n        Sivagangai District.                    ...                     Respondents\n\n        This writ  petition  came  to  be  numbered  by  way  of  transfer  of\nO.A.No.3959 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a\nprayer  to  issue  a  writ  of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records\npertaining to the impugned order made by the first respondent dated  24.4.2002\nbearing No.27007\/T-2\/2000-14, quash the same and consequently direct the first\nrespondent to sanction the remaining amount of pay of Rs.156.40 treating it as\na  special  or  separate  pay  from  the date of petitioner's re-employment as\nOffice Assistant in the office of the second respondent i.e, 14.7.1983 for the\npurpose of refixation of pay at Rs.796.40 with effect from 14.7.1983.\n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran\n\n^For Respondents        :       Mrs.D.Malarvishi,\n                                Government Advocate\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        Prayer in the writ petition is to quash  the  impugned  order  of  the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  dated 24.4.2002 bearing No.27007\/T-2\/2000-14 and direct the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to sanction the remaining amount of pay of Rs.156.40 treating<br \/>\nit as a special or separate pay from the date of petitioner&#8217;s re-employment as<br \/>\nOffice Assistant in the office of the second respondent  i.e,  14.7.1983,  for<br \/>\nthe purpose of re-fixation of pay at Rs.796.40.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as<br \/>\nstated  in  the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner are that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas appointed as a Soldier in the Indian Army on 25.5.1968 and after 15  years<br \/>\nof  his  unblemished  record  of  service,  he was discharged from the Army on<br \/>\n1.6.1983.  At the time of his discharge from Army, his last drawn  salary  was<br \/>\nRs.796.40.   Petitioner  was re-employed in the Government Industrial Training<br \/>\nInstitute at Karaikudi, Sivagangai District on 14.7.1983 as an  Ex-Serviceman.<br \/>\nPetitioner even though received Rs.796.40 as his last drawn salary, the second<br \/>\nrespondent  originally fixed his salary at the rate of Rs.640\/- per month with<br \/>\nusual allowances.  According to the petitioner, the said action being contrary<br \/>\nto the Government orders, petitioner submitted a representation to the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  to  re-fix  his scale of pay at the rate of Rs.796.40 per month on<br \/>\nthe basis of his last drawn salary at the  time  of  his  discharge  from  the<br \/>\nIndian Army.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      It  is the case of the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.847 Finance (<br \/>\nPension) Department, dated 7.10.1983 clearly states that when the Exservicemen<br \/>\nare re-employed in civil services, their salary should be fixed on  the  basis<br \/>\nof their last drawn salary.  It is the further case of the petitioner that one<br \/>\nA.Dharmarajan,  Record Clerk, who was an ExServiceman, on his re-employment as<br \/>\nRecord Clerk at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Paramakudi,  was<br \/>\ngiven  pay  protection  with  effect from his date of re-employment, i.e, from<br \/>\n13.1.1984 by the proceedings of the Principal, Government Industrial  Training<br \/>\nInstitute,  Paramakudi  in his proceeding in Rc.No.7068\/A\/91, dated &#8211;.2.1992.<br \/>\nThe said re-fixation was made to the said A.Dharmarajan  based  on  Government<br \/>\norders.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      It  is  further  stated  by the petitioner that his last drawn<br \/>\nsalary was verified from the Madras Regiment, Abhilekh Karyalaya,  Wellington,<br \/>\nNilgiris and the said Office by letter dated 23.3.1994, certified petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nlast  drawn salary as Rs.796.40 and stated that the said last drawn salary can<br \/>\nbe taken into  consideration  for  fixation  of  pay  at  his  civil  service.<br \/>\nPursuant  to  the  said  certificate,  the  second  respondent  by order dated<br \/>\n3.7.1997 sanctioned additional amount of Rs.156.40 to the  basic  pay  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner, so  as  to  reach  the total pay of Rs.796.40.  The petitioner was<br \/>\npaid the arrears of salary from 14.7.1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      Further case of the petitioner is that the  second  respondent<br \/>\nsent  the  proposal  to  the  first  respondent for ratification and the first<br \/>\nrespondent by letter No.27007\/TD-2\/2000-14 dated 24.4.2002  ordered  that  the<br \/>\ndifference  in pay of Rs.156\/- sanctioned from 14.7.1983 cannot be paid to the<br \/>\npetitioner as special pay or personal pay and the petitioner  is  eligible  to<br \/>\nget  pay  scale  of  Rs.250\/- with usual allowances and that the excess amount<br \/>\npaid to the petitioner shall be recovered.    The  said  order  of  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  is  challenged by the petitioner in O.A.No.3959 of 2002 before the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was subsequently transferred to this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The  Tribunal,  while  admitting  the  original   application,<br \/>\ngranted  interim stay of recovery by order dated 8.7.2002 and subsequently the<br \/>\nstay order was extended until further orders on 26.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein  it  is<br \/>\nadmitted  that  on  the  date  of  discharge  of  petitioner from the military<br \/>\nservice, he was receiving Rs.796.40 and that  the  petitioner  was  sanctioned<br \/>\nonly Rs.640\/-  on  his re-employment.  The difference of Rs.156.40 was paid to<br \/>\nthe petitioner from 14.7.1983 as per petitioner&#8217;s  request  and  there  is  no<br \/>\nprovision to include this difference in the petitioner&#8217;s pay and therefore the<br \/>\nGovernment ordered  recovery  of the said amount.  It is further stated in the<br \/>\ncounter affidavit that there is no provision to fix the pay and allowances  of<br \/>\nan  Ex-Serviceman  at  the  time  of  his  re-employment  in  civil  services,<br \/>\nequivalent to his total emoluments last drawn by him and  hence  the  impugned<br \/>\norder is  passed based on the rules.  As the petitioner is not eligible to get<br \/>\nthe enhanced pay as per the rules, there is no necessity to give any notice or<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the petitioner before ordering recovery of the  said<br \/>\namount.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that<br \/>\nthe petitioner retired from the service as on 28.2.2006 and the order  of  the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  is  contrary  to  the  sanction  order passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent as well as the Gover ers.  The learned  counsel  further  submitted<br \/>\nthat  the  petitioner  being  an Ex-Serviceman, is legally entitled to get his<br \/>\nlast drawn salary on re-employment and that the first respondent has not given<br \/>\nany reason to cancel the sanction  order  passed  by  the  second  respondent.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel  also  argued that the petitioner was not given any notice or<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing before ordering cancellation of the sanction order  and<br \/>\norder  of  recovery  and  thus the principles of natural justice is thoroughly<br \/>\nviolated in this case.   For  all  these  reasons,  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner sought to set aside the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      I  have  considered  the rival submissions made by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for  the  petitioner  as  well  as  the  learned  Government<br \/>\nAdvocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     The  points  in  issue  are, whether the sanction of Rs.156.40<br \/>\nadditionally to the basic pay of the petitioner by the  second  respondent  is<\/p>\n<p>valid  and  that  whether  the first respondent is entitled to cancel the said<br \/>\norder and order recovery without issuing any notice or opportunity of  hearing<br \/>\nto the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     It   is   the   specific  case  of  the  petitioner  that  the<br \/>\nExServicemen, appointed in the  civil  services  on  re-employment  basis  are<br \/>\nentitled  to get their salary fixed, taking note of their last drawn salary in<br \/>\nthe military service.  No  rule  was  pointed  out  or  Government  Order  was<br \/>\nproduced,  disentitling  the petitioner to claim the last drawn salary, by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent.  The same was not even stated in the counter affidavit.  The<br \/>\nsecond respondent, who is the competent authority,  by  order  dated  3.7.1997<br \/>\nduly  re-fixed  the  petitioner&#8217;s  scale  of pay at the rate of Rs.796.40 with<br \/>\neffect from 14.7.1983 and also paid the arrears.  The Madras Regiment  Office,<br \/>\nby  letter  dated  23.3.1994  also  certified that the petitioner&#8217;s last drawn<br \/>\nsalary in the military service as Rs.796.40 per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     During the course of arguments, the learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner pointed out that one A.Dharmarajan was appointed as Record Clerk in<br \/>\nthe  Government  Industrial  Training  Institute,  Paramakudi, and his pay was<br \/>\nfixed based on his last drawn salary in the  military  service  and  the  said<br \/>\norder is  filed  among the typed set of papers.  Placing reliance on the same,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel stressed that  the  action  of  the  first  respondent  is<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     This  Court  on  2.2.2006,  13.2.2006,  16.2.2006,  23.2.2006,<br \/>\n2.3.200 6, 6.3.2006 and on 9.3.2006 adjourned the matter to  find  out  as  to<br \/>\nwhether  the  said  A.Dharmarajan  was paid salary on his re-employment on the<br \/>\nbasis of his last drawn salary in the military service and also  to  find  out<br \/>\nthe difference  in  the  case  of A.Dharmarajan to that of the petitioner.  In<br \/>\nspite of giving adjournments on the above dates, no reply was forthcoming from<br \/>\nthe Government Advocate appearing for  the  respondents.    Therefore,  it  is<br \/>\npresumed that the first respondent has no answer to take a different view from<br \/>\nthat of A.Dharmarajan&#8217;s case.  Hence petitioner&#8217;s contention is to be accepted<br \/>\nas  the  action  of  the  first  respondent  is violative of Article 14 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     Further, petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing before passing  the  impugned  order  of  recovery.    While  ordering<br \/>\nrecovery  from  the  salary, petitioner&#8217;s civil rights are very much affected,<br \/>\nfor which principles of natural justice is to be mandatorily followed.  It  is<br \/>\nalso  admitted  in  the  counter  affidavit  that  no notice or opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing was given to the petitioner.  Hence the action of the first respondent<br \/>\nis in violation to Article  14  of  Constitution  of  India  and  against  the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.     For  the  above reasons, the impugned order dated 24.4.2002 is<br \/>\nquashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent as  prayed  for.<br \/>\nThe writ petition is allowed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes\/No.\n<\/p>\n<p>Website:  Yes\/No.\n<\/p>\n<p>23-3-2006 <\/p>\n<p>vr<\/p>\n<p>N.  PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Vr<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.      The Deputy Secretary, Labour and Employment (T-2) Department,<br \/>\n        Secretariat,    Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute,<br \/>\n        Karaikudi-5,    Sivagangai District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 23\/03\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.24861 of 2005 S. Chockalingam &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Deputy Secretary, Labour and Employment (T-2) Department, Secretariat, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1465,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\",\"name\":\"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006"},"wordCount":1465,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006","name":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T15:31:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-chockalingam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Chockalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}