{"id":169740,"date":"2002-06-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-06-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002"},"modified":"2018-10-23T04:06:49","modified_gmt":"2018-10-22T22:36:49","slug":"r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","title":{"rendered":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 26\/06\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 1999 AND WRIT PETITION NO.7869 OF 1999\nAND W.P.NO. 18379 OF 1999\nAND\nWMP.NOS.11181, 11202 AND 26819 OF 1999\n\n\nR.Arumugam                             ... Petitioner in all the Wps.\n\n-Vs-\n\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu,\nrep.by the Assistant Director,\nKhadi & Village Industries,\nTamil Nadu,\nKhadi & Village Industries Board,\nVirudhunagar                            ... Respondent in all the Wps.<\/pre>\n
                Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of
\nIndia  praying  to  issue  writs  of Ceriorari(in Wps.7851 and 18379\/1999) and
\nCertiorarified Mandamus (in WP.7869\/1999) as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
For petitioner :  Mr.K.V.Srinivasaraghavan<\/p>\n
For respondent :  Mr.B.Dhinesh Kumar<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
                All the above three writ petitions have been filed by one  and
\nthe  same  petitioner, the first one in W.P.No.7851 of 1999 praying to issue a
\nwrit of Certiorari calling  for  the  records  relating  to  the  respondent’s
\nshow-cause  notice  issued  to  the  petitioner  bearing No.6813\/C1\/9 3, dated
\n26.3.1993 and quash the same in so far as the  petitioner  is  concerned;  the
\nsecond  one  in  W.P.7869  of  1999  praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
\nMandamus calling for the records in respect of  Letter  No.48807\/O2\/96,  dated
\n18.2.1999  of  the  respondent,  quash  the  same  and consequently direct the
\nrespondent to  sanction  payment  of  full  pension  and  Death-cum-Retirement
\nGratuity as   per   rules,  together  with  interest  at  15%  p.a.    on  the
\nDeath-cum-Retirement Gratuity from 1.10.1 996 to  the  date  of  payment  with
\ncosts  and  the  third  writ  petition  in W.P.No.18379 of 1999 has been filed
\npraying to issue a  Writ  of  Certiorari  to  call  for  the  records  of  the
\nrespondent relating to the charge memo.  No.59319\/E3(2)\/99-2, dated 15.10.1999
\nand quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   For  easy  reference  and  for  the  sake of convenience,
\nW.P.Nos.7851 of 1999, 7869 of 1999 and 18379 of 1999 are hereinafter  referred
\nto as the first, second and the third writ petitions respectively.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   In  the  affidavits  filed  in  support of the above writ
\npetitions, which are common regarding the facts of the case but  differing  at
\nthe  last  phase,  sticking  to  the prayers, the petitioner would submit that
\nhaving joined the services of the Tamil  Nadu  Khadi  and  Village  Industries
\nBoard  as  a  Junior  Assistant in 1963, he was promoted Assistant Director in
\nJune,  1992  and  served  in  various  places  prior  to  his  retirement   of
\nsuperannuation  on  30.9.1996  and  in fact by proceeding dated 24.9.1996, the
\nrespondent permitted him to retire from the Board’s service  on  30.9.1996  on
\nattaining the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The petitioner would then quote Regulation 48 of the Tamil
\nNadu  Khadi  and  Village Industries Board Service Regulations, 1966 and would
\nsubmit that the said Regulations Mutatis mutandis apply to the Members of  the
\nBoard’s  Service in the matter of pay, allowances, Travelling Allowance, Leave
\nSalary and other conditions of service;  that  on  10.3.1993,  the  respondent
\naccorded  sanction  for  the  payment of provisional pension at Rs.1,498\/= per
\nmonth to the petitioner for a period of one year from 1.10.1996  to  30.9.1997
\nor  till  the finalisation of the pension, whichever is earlier; that in 1999,
\nby letter dated 18.2.1999, it  was  revealed  that  certain  audit  objections
\nduring the petitioner’s service have been raised and only based on the outcome
\nof  the decision arrived at, his retirement benefits would be allowed and till
\nthen, only provisional pension could be allowed; that in  April,  199  9,  the
\npetitioner  filed the first writ petition above to quash the show-cause notice
\ndated 26.3.1999 and this Court admitted the  same  and  also  ordered  interim
\ninjunction on 9.7.1999 in W.M.P.No.11181 of 1999 .\n<\/p>\n
                5.   The  petitioner  would also submit that he also filed the
\nsecond writ petition above with the prayer extracted therein and in this  writ
\npetition  also,  in W.M.P.No.11203 of 1999, this Court directed the respondent
\nto pay a sum of Rs.50,000\/= to the petitioner towards  Dearness  Allowance  on
\nProvisional Pension within six weeks; that while so, on 17.10.1999, the charge
\nmemo.  dated 15.10.1999 which is the subject matter of the third writ petition
\nabove  had  been  issued by the respondent under Regulation 34(b) of the Tamil
\nNadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Service Regulations and  Rule  9(2)(b)
\nof the Pension Rules of Tamil Nadu; that the said letter contained two charges
\nrelating  to  the  purchase  of  silk cotton during August, 1995 for which the
\npetitioner sent his reply dated 29.10.1999 expressing his inability to  submit
\nhis explanation and took time.  Further stating that the impugned charge memo.
\ndated 15.10.1999 has been issued in violation of the Pension Rules and the law
\nlaid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court,  the petitioner would file the third writ
\npetition above on certain grounds as brought forth in the said writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  In the grounds of the third writ petition, the  petitioner
\nwould  extract  Pension  Rule  9(2)(b)  and  9(2)6)  and would submit that any
\ndepartmental proceedings, against  a  retired  Government  Servant,  could  be
\ninitiated only  within  the  parameters  of these Rules.  The petitioner would
\nalso quote the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R.   1954  (SC)  340
\nwherein  it  has  been  held  that  `the  defect of jurisdiction whether it is
\npecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter  of
\nthe  action,  strikes  at the very authority and such a defect cannot be cured
\neven by consent of parties’ and would submit that the said proposition of  law
\napplies squarely  to  his case.  On such grounds, the petitioner would pray to
\nthe relief in the third writ petition<\/p>\n
                7.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
\nin the first writ petition above, it would be submitted  that  the  respondent
\nhas  been  wrongly shown as representing the Government of Tamil Nadu and that
\nhe cannot represent the Government and at this score itself, the writ petition
\nbecomes liable to be dismissed; that while the writ petitioner was serving  as
\nthe  Assistant  Director  of Khadi and Village Industries at Virudhunagar from
\n1.10.1993 to 14.5.1995, he was also acting as the  Chairman  of  the  Purchase
\nCommittee  to  purchase  neem seeds to the Board for the year 1993-94, 1994-95
\nand 1995-96 and it came to be  found  that  the  purchases  were  of  inferior
\nquality  and the price fixed was much more than the market rate thus causing a
\nloss of Rs.3,38,406\/= to the Board on which there were audit objections;  that
\nsince  proceedings  were  pending  against  him, he gave an undertaking to the
\neffect of authorising the respondent to recover the loss caused by him\/payable
\nby him due to his omissions, negligence and  carelessness  from  his  terminal
\nbenefits   and   that   he  had  no  objection  for  such  recovery  from  his
\nDeath-cum-Retirement Gratuity, commutation pension and Dearness  Allowance  on
\npension etc.  payable to him; that only in view of the said undertaking given,
\nhe  was  permitted  to  retire from service; that because of the action of the
\npetitioner, the Board sustained a loss of Rs.2,05,191\/= during  1993-95  which
\nhe  is  bound to make good; that only pending finalisation of the loss, he was<\/p>\n
allowed to  draw  provisional  pension  on  humanitarian  grounds.    On  such
\ncontentions,  the  respondent  would  ultimately pray to dismiss the said writ
\npetition with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  During arguments, the learned counsel for the  petitioner,
\nbesides tracing the facts and circumstances which have already been pleaded in
\nall  the  above  writ  petitions, would point out that as per the letter dated
\n24.9.1996, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.9.1996  and
\ntherefore  the  tie is snapped between the petitioner and the respondent; that
\nwhile so, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules come into play, which are applicable to
\nthe employees of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board  and  would
\nlay emphasis on Regulation 48 of the Board’s Regulations.  The learned counsel
\nwould also cite the following four judgments:\n<\/p>\n
1.  A.I.R.   1985  Supreme  Court  356  (STATE  OF  KERALA  AND OTHERS vs.  M.
\nPADMANABHAN NAIR)<\/a><\/p>\n
2.  A.I.R.  1990 Supreme Court 10 (S.S.RATHORE vs.  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)<\/a><\/p>\n
3.  1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases  56  (STATE  OF  BIHAR  AND  OTHERS  vs.
\nMOHD.IDRIS ANSARI) and<\/a><\/p>\n
4.  2000-II-LLJ 253 (VIJAY L.MEHROTRA AND STATE OF U.P.  AND OTHERS)<\/p>\n
                9.  So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, the
\nHonourable Apex Court has held:\n<\/p>\n
“Pension  and  gratuity  are  no  longer  any  bounty to be distributed by the
\nGovernment to its employees on their retirement but are  valuable  rights  and
\nproperty  in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement
\nthereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current
\nmarket rate till actual payment.  The liability to pay penal interest on these
\ndues at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the
\ndate of retirement.”\n<\/p>\n
                10.  So far as the second judgment cited above is concerned, a
\nlarger Bench of the Honourable Apex Court,  while  determining  the  cause  of
\naction  for  the purpose of limitation applicable to decisions of Departmental
\nTribunals, held:\n<\/p>\n
“In the case of a service dispute the cause of action must be taken  to  arise
\nnot from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order
\nof  the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the
\nappeal or representation is made and where no such order is made,  though  the
\nremedy  has  been availed of, a six months’ period from the date of preferring
\nof the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to  be  the  date
\nwhen cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen.”\n<\/p>\n
                11.   In  the  third judgment cited above, the Honourable Apex
\nCourt, in a case wherein a  notice  seeking  to  initiate  fresh  departmental
\nproceedings  after  the  retirement  of  the  respondent, applying the proviso\n<\/p>\n
(a)(ii) to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, would remark that  `it  must
\nbe  shown  that  in  departmental  proceedings or in judicial proceedings, the
\nGovernment servant concerned is found guilty of grave  misconduct.    This  is
\nalso  subject to the rider that such departmental proceedings shall have to be
\nin respect of misconduct which took place not more than four years before  the
\ninitiation  of  such proceedings’ and therefore would hold that `apparently no
\ndepartmental proceedings  could  have  been  initiated  in  1993  against  the
\nrespondent  under  the  said Rule in connection with the alleged misconduct of
\nthe year 1986 -87.’<\/p>\n
                12.  In the last judgment cited above, which  too  is  by  the
\nHonourable  Apex Court, it has been held that `in case of an employee retiring
\nafter having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of  retiral<\/p>\n
benefits  should  be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter….’ On
\nsuch arguments, the learned counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner
\nwould ultimately pray to allow the writ petitions as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the respondent, besides extracting what has  been  stated  in  the  counter
\naffidavit  filed  on behalf of the respondent would pin-pointedly say that all
\nthe writ petitions are defective on the very face of them on  account  of  the
\nlegal error made in the very cause title thereby wrongly terming the Assistant
\nDirector, Khadi and Village Industries Board as representing the Government of
\nTamil  Nadu  and  at  this score itself the writ petitions become liable to be
\ndismissed as untenable  in  law.    He  would  further  lay  emphasis  on  the
\nirregularities committed on the part of the petitioner while he was working as
\nthe Chairman of the Purchase Committee to purchase neem seeds to the Board for
\nthe  years  1993  to  1996  and therefore the respondent authority is right in
\nhaving initiated the disciplinary proceeding against him.  The learned counsel
\nwould further point out that none of the judgments cited on the  part  of  the
\npetitioner would  apply  to  the facts of the case.  The learned counsel would
\nalso argue that neither the Regulation 48 nor Regulation 34(b)  of  the  Tamil
\nNadu  Khadi  and  Village  Industries Board Service Regulations, 1996 nor even
\nRule 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(6) of the Pension Rules of Tamil Nadu would come to  the
\nrescue  of the petitioner since the petitioner’s case do not at all fall under
\nthe purview of these provisions of law.    On  such  arguments  advanced,  the
\nlearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would ultimately pray to
\ndismiss all the above writ petitions as bereft of any merit.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   In  consideration of the facts and circumstances brought
\nforth by the petitioner in the pleadings of the writ petitions, having  regard
\nto  the  materials  placed  on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for
\nboth what could be gathered is that it is a disciplinary proceeding  initiated
\nagainst  the  petitioner  first  by issuing the letter dated 18.2.1999 thereby
\nstating that since certain audit objections and lapses were pending pertaining
\nto the service period of the petitioner, only a provisional pension  could  be
\nallowed  and  only  based  on  the  outcome  of  the  decision arrived at, the
\nretirement benefits would be allowed and the said letter is  impugned  in  the
\nsecond writ  petition  above.    The impugned order in the first writ petition
\nabove is the show cause  notice  dated  26.3.1999  issued  by  the  respondent
\nthereby  seeking  his  explanation as to why recovery of the loss sustained by
\nthe Board should not be effected from his terminal benefits and  the  impugned
\norder  in  the  third  writ petition above is also the show-cause notice dated
\n15.10.1999 thereby framing charges against the petitioner.  All these impugned
\norders gave way for the petitioner  to  initiate  all  the  above  three  writ
\npetitions at the relevant points of time.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   The  subject  matter for such proceeding to be initiated
\nagainst the petitioner is the irregularities committed  on  the  part  of  the
\npetitioner  while  serving  as  the  Assistant  Director  of Khadi and Village
\nIndustries Board,  Virudhunagar  from  1.10.1993  to  14.5.1995  and  in  such
\ncapacity  acting  as  the Chairman of the Purchase Committee he purchased neem
\nseeds and it came to be found that the said purchases were of inferior quality
\nand the price fixed was far higher than the market value, resulting in a  loss
\nof  Rs.3,38,406\/=  to  the  Board, which had also been brought to light by the
\naudit report.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  The pertinent question that arises for  consideration  in
\nthe  wake  of  the  allegation  of  the  writ petition and in the light of the
\njudgments of the Apex Court cited is, `whether it is right on the part of  the
\nrespondent  Board  to  have  initiated the disciplinary proceeding against the
\npetitioner further refusing to pay to  the  petitioner  the  retiral  benefits
\nafter  having  allowed  the  petitioner  to  actually  retire  from service on
\n30.9.1996 on attaining his superannuation?’<\/p>\n
                17.  Though this point of law has been highlighted on the part
\nof the petitioner, nowhere the  petitioner  has  stated  that  he  assured  in
\nwriting  to  the  Board  authorities  that  he  might  be allowed to retire on
\nsuperannuation subject to the pendency of the enquiry instituted  against  him
\nand  further agreeing to get the retiral benefits on conclusion of the enquiry
\nand till such time expressing his satisfaction on  releasing  the  provisional
\nretiral benefits which have been provided for by the respondent Board that too
\npurely on humanitarian consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   This  arrangement  made  in  a  cordial  atmosphere, the
\npetitioner assuring to cooperate with the disciplinary enquiry to  attain  its
\nlogical  conclusions,  had  neither  been  brought  forth  in  any of the writ
\npetitions nor had his case been based on  such  foundations  which  have  been
\ndisclosed  though technically it could not be branded as suppression of facts.
\nHowever, the judgments cited and the provisions of law shown  from  the  Rules
\nand  Regulations  concerned  cannot at all become applicable to the petitioner
\nespecially Rule 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which has
\nbeen clearly given that only an enquiry shall not be instituted in respect  of
\nan event which took place more than four years before such institution whereas
\nhere the delinquencies forming part of the disciplinary proceeding are alleged
\nto  have been committed on the part of the petitioner in between 1993 and 1996
\nand therefore even prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the disciplinary
\nproceedings having been initiated with the showcause  notice  dated  26.3.1993
\nwhich  is impugned in the second writ petition, there is absolutely no bearing
\nfor this Rule nor could it at any stretch of imagination be considered that in
\nthe usual course, having allowed the petitioner to retire, later the  domestic
\nenquiry has  been  commenced  by the Board’s authorities.  If at any delay has
\nbeen caused to the present day, it is only because of  the  petitioner  having
\nfiled  the  above  writ  petitions and stalling the proceedings by the interim
\norders passed by this Court and definitely not on account of  any  delay  that
\nhas been caused on the part of the respondent Board.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   So  far  as  the  judgments  cited  on  the  part of the
\npetitioner are concerned,  in  the  first  judgment  referred  to  above,  the
\nHonourable  Apex Court has held in the manner extracted supra that in cases of
\nculpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof which  must  be  visited
\nwith the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual
\npayment.   But,  the  case  in  hand  is  not one in which either there is any
\nculpability in the payment of the retiral benefits of the  petitioner  or  any
\ndelay  in  settlement in the normal course, but, based on an enquiry initiated
\nprior to  retirement  and  on  assurance  given  by  the  petitioner  that  on
\nascertainment  of  the  figures  of  loss, it could be deducted from the final
\npayment, and therefore, the general proposition held by  the  Honourable  Apex
\nCourt does not in any manner apply to the facts of the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   Likewise,  in  the  second  judgment  also,  it  is  the
\nlimitation question which is the subject matter and the Honourable Apex  Court
\nhas  fixed  the time limit in the context of the cause of action and it is not
\nthe limitation question which is the subject matter of the case  in  hand  and
\nhence  the second judgment cannot also come to the rescue of the petitioner in
\ndeciding his case.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  In the third judgment, since the Rules prescribe that  in
\nthe  case of a retiring person, the alleged misconduct should have taken place
\nwithin the last six years, from the time of  initiating  the  proceedings  and
\nsince  in  the case in hand, the action was initiated in the year 1993, for an
\nalleged misconduct of the year 1986-87, the Honourable Apex  Court  held  that
\n`no  action  could be taken under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.’ This
\nis not the question involved in the case of the  petitioner  even  though  the
\nsame  four  year period is prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules which is
\nworking against the interest of the petitioner  since  the  loss  occasion  on
\naccount of mismanagement of the petitioner was during 1993 and 1996 and action
\nhas  been  well  initiated  in  the year 1996 itself and therefore there is no
\nquestion of the petitioner seeking protection under the relevant  Rule  quoted
\nby him in the grounds of third writ petition above.\n<\/p>\n
                22.   So far as the last judgment of the Honourable Apex Court
\nholding that the payment of retiral benefits should be made  on  the  date  of
\nretirement  or  soon thereafter is concerned, it cannot also be applied to the
\ncase of the petitioner in the sense that the said proposition applies  to  the
\nnormal  retirement  of  a  person  of the status of the petitioner without any
\ndisciplinary proceeding initiated against much less on a heavy loss caused  to
\nthe  department on account of the mismanagement of the delinquent which is the
\ncase of the petitioner herein and therefore this proposition  also  cannot  be
\nheld applicable to the case of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   For  all the above reasons assigned, there is absolutely
\nno iota of genuineness or legality attached to the reliefs sought for  in  any
\nof  the  writ  petitions  which have been filed only to stall the disciplinary
\nproceedings and it is not at all desirable  to  prolong  the  proceeding  thus
\nallowing it  to  become  stale.  Therefore, an early enquiry held and decision
\narrived at by the disciplinary authority alone will be the answer.    None  of
\nthe  notices or orders impugned in all the above three writ petitions could be
\neither held bad in law or is there any necessity on the part of this Court  to
\ninterfere  with  the  same  as  it  has  been  sought  for  on the part of the
\npetitioner in the prayer columns of all the writ petitions and  therefore  the
\nonly  valid  conclusion  that  could  be  arrived  at  by  this  Court  in the
\ncircumstances of the case is to  dismiss  all  the  above  writ  petitions  as
\nwithout  merit  and allowing the disciplinary proceeding instituted already to
\nattain its logical ends.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  Absolutely, no legal infirmity or inconsistency or  error
\napparent  on the face of the record or lack of opportunity in violation of the
\nprinciples of natural justice or any such legal ills or  any  such  illegality
\nhas crept into all the notices and orders impugned in the above writ petitions
\nand therefore the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court is to
\ndismiss all the above writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                In  result,  all  the  above  writ petitions fail and they are
\ndismissed as such.\n<\/p>\n
                However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                Consequently, W.M.P.No.11181, 11202 and 26819 of 1999 are also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.<\/p>\n
\nInternet:  Yes\nRao                                                             26.6.2002.\n\nTo\n\nThe Assistant Director,\nKhadi & Village Industries,\nTamil Nadu,\nKhadi & Village Industries Board,\nVirudhunagar.\n\n\n\nV.KANAGARAJ, J.\n\n\nCommon Order in W.P.NOS.\n7851,7869 & 18379\/ 1999\nWMP.NOS.11181,11202 & 26819\/1999\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26\/06\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 1999 AND WRIT PETITION NO.7869 OF 1999 AND W.P.NO. 18379 OF 1999 AND WMP.NOS.11181, 11202 AND 26819 OF 1999 R.Arumugam … Petitioner in […]<\/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-169740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-22T22:36:49+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T22:36:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3467,\"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\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\",\"name\":\"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T22:36:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-22T22:36:49+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002","datePublished":"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T22:36:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002"},"wordCount":3467,"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\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002","name":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T22:36:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-arumugam-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-june-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2002"}]},{"@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\/169740","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=169740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}