{"id":68740,"date":"2006-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-06-14T16:02:12","modified_gmt":"2016-06-14T10:32:12","slug":"a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED:  21\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA       \n\nWP.No.511 of 2003  \nto\nWP.No.516 of 2003,  \n2365, 3786, 5546,\n35879, 35906, 35907, \n36160 of 2003,\n9403 of 2004 and 1285, \n580, 22893 and 22894 of 2005 \n& \nW.P.M.P.No.43608, 43632   \nand \n43633 of 2003 \nand \n678 of 2005\n\n\nA.  Mary,\nW\/o.P. Joseph \nCherukuzhiveedu, Annucode,  \nDesam, Koolamcode Post,   \nVilavankode Taluk,\nKanyakumari District.   ..  Petitioner in WP.511\/2003\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Tamil Development and Culture\n     Department, Fort St. George,\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Director of Tamil Development\n     and Culture, Kuralagam,\n   Chennai 108.\n\n3. The District Collector,\n   Kanyakumari District\n     at Nagercoil               .. Respondents in WP.511\/2003<\/pre>\n
        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the
\nissuance  of writ of declaration declaring Section 3 of the payment of Pension
\nto Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provision Act,  1983  and  the  discretion
\ngiven to  the  Govt.  to pay pension\/Grant\/Scholarship to Tamil Scholars under
\nthe Act 23 of 1983, the Rules issued  in  G.O.    Ms.No.21  Tamil  Development
\nCulture  dated  20-6-1984  and  the  consequential order of the 1st respondent
\nissued in G.O.Ms.No.255 Tamil Development and Culture Dept.  dated  13-11-2002
\nin  so  far as not paying monthly pension to the petitioner as discriminatory,
\nviolative Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as null and void and
\ndirect the respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioner from 1-1-2000.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner :  Mr.K.Ravichandrababu<\/p>\n
^For Respondents:  Mr.S.Gomathynayagam
\n                Special Govt.  Pleader<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT       <\/p>\n
        All these writ petitions raise common questions of fact  and  law  and
\ntherefore disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
        2.    The   petitioners   in   different  writ  petitions  are  either
\nparticipants in the movement relating to merger  of  Tamil  areas  within  the
\nState  of  Tamil  Nadu, who had undergone imprisonment in connection with such
\nmovement, or widows of such participants.  The agitations relating  to  merger
\nof  Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk had been launched during the year
\n1954.  Similarly, the agitation for the merger of Tiruttani and Pallipattu had
\nbeen launched in the year 1953.  With a  view  to  compensate  the  sufferings
\nundergone  by  such  agitators  as  well  as  to recognise their contributions
\ntowards merger of such areas and for development of Tamil language, the  State
\nGovernment  had  enacted  Tamil  Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and
\nMiscellaneous Provisions Act,1983 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act).
\nUnder  the Rule making power envisaged under such Act, the Government had also
\nframed statutory rules known  as  Tamil  Nadu  Payment  of  Pension  to  Tamil
\nScholars  and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as
\nthe Rules.\n<\/p>\n
        Initially under Section 3(1) of the Act,  a  person  was  eligible  to
\nreceive  monthly  pension  of Rs.150\/- or a grant not exceeding Rs.10,000\/- or
\nboth.  However, subsequently by amendment, the quantum  of  pension  has  been
\nincreased  from  time  to  time  and ultimately such pension has been fixed at
\nRs.3,000\/- per month with Rs.15\/- per month as medical allowance.   Similarly,
\nthe  amount  payable  towards  family  pension  to  the  legal  heirs  of such
\nparticipants has been correspondingly increased.  However, there is no  change
\neffected in  the  grant  of  lumpsum  amount  not  exceeding Rs.10,000\/-.  The
\nGovernment has been sanctioning payment of such amount from time  to  time  to
\nvarious participants as evident from G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 3.3.1988, when monthly
\npension  was  sanctioned  at the rate of Rs.250\/- per month to the applicants.
\nSubsequently,  under  G.O.Ms.No.412  dated  15.12.1989,  the  Government   had
\nsanctioned monthly pension to another 952 persons with effect from 1.10.19 89.
\nWhile  the  matter  stood thus, some of the claimants, who had participated in
\nconnection with some of the agitations were denied payment on the ground  that
\nthey were  not able to produce certificate from jail authorities.  The dispute
\nwas taken to the High Court and ultimately in the judgment  reported  in  1997
\nWrit L.R.  639 (K.   ARUMUGHAM NADAR v.  GOVT.  OF TAMIL NADU AND TWO OTHERS),<\/a>
\na learned single Judge of this Court laid down various principles relating  to
\nconsideration of  such  application.    In  one  such  writ  petition, namely,
\nW.P.No.14718 of 1993, in the counter the State Government had  indicated  that
\nunder  the provisions of the Act and the Rules, payment of pension is not only
\ncontemplated to the Tamil Scholars but also to those who had fought for merger
\nof Tamil areas within the State of Tamil Nadu.  The relevant portion  of  such
\ncounter  affidavit  is  in  fact  extracted  in the judgment of the High Court
\nreported in 1999-III MLJ 728 (C.  NATARAJAN AND THERS v.   THE  GOVERNMENT  OF
\nTAMIL NADU  AND  OTHERS).    Such<\/a> decision related to many of the petitioners.
\nUnder such decision, the  learned  single  Judge  had  ultimately  issued  the
\nfollowing directions :-\n<\/p>\n
        20.  Under these circumstances, I pass the following Orders :
\n        (1)  The  impugned orders of the first respondent in W.P.Nos.20799, 21
\n924, 21925, 21927 and 22587 of 1993 are quashed and the matter is remitted  to
\nthe first respondent Government for passing appropriate fresh orders.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  The first respondent-Government is directed to consider the claim
\nof the petitioners in W.P.Nos.14718, 15899, 19645, 19646 of 1993 and  1788  of
\n1994 and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the materials placed by them.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)  The first respondent is directed to take note of the observations
\nmade above while passing fresh orders.\n<\/p>\n
        (4) If any additional information\/material is required, it is open  to
\nthe first respondent to get the same from the respective petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) The order shall be passed within a period of three months from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.<\/p>\n
        3.   Even  though  a  specific  time limit was indicated, no order was
\npassed by the Government and, at that stage, the present petitioners had filed
\nContempt Petitions.  After receipt of notice in those contempt petitions,  the
\nGovernment  passed  orders  on  13.11.2002  sanctioning Rs.10,000\/- as lumpsum
\npayment to those of the petitioners who were participants in the movement  and
\na  sum  of  Rs.5000\/-  to  those  of  the  petitioners  who  are widows of the
\nparticipants.  The contempt petitions were subsequently closed  on  13.12.2002
\nleaving  it  open  to  the  petitioners  to challenge such order passed by the
\nGovernment and observing that it would be open to the petitioners  to  receive
\nsuch amount  which has been granted by the Government.  Thereafter the present
\nwrit petitions have been filed challenging  the  validity  of  the  provisions
\ncontained  in  the  Act  and  the Rules to the extent it provides for grant of
\nRs.10,000\/- as lumpsum.  It is claimed that either monthly pension  should  be
\npaid or the lumpsum amount be increased.\n<\/p>\n
                3.1.   The main contention of the petitioners is to the effect
\nthat almost all the participants who had filed applications earlier  had  been
\npaid monthly pension, which was being increased from time to time, whereas the
\nGovernment, in the present case, has granted merely a payment of Rs.10,000\/- \/
\nRs.5,000\/-  as  the  case  may be without any rhyme or reason, even though the
\npetitioners had prayed for payment of monthly pension.  It is  submitted  that
\nno  guidelines have been fixed either in the Act or in the Rules as to whether
\na participant should be paid monthly pension or a participant should  be  paid
\nlumpsum not  exceeding Rs.10,000\/-.  It is also contended that grant of family
\npension to other persons who had applied and refusal to grant  family  pension
\nto  the  present petitioners and instead granting them a lumpsum amount as one
\ntime grant is factually discriminatory and at any  rate  no  reason  has  been
\ngiven in  such  orders  passed by the Government.  The petitioners have prayed
\nthat the Government should  be  directed  to  grant  monthly  pension  to  the
\npetitioners.   It  has been submitted that the amount already paid as one time
\ngrant can be adjusted towards such pension.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government
\nthe history of the movement and  the  G.Os  issued  from  time  to  time  were
\nindicated and it was further indicated that there has been some administrative
\ndelay  and  subsequently  the  Government  had  sanctioned  lumpsum payment of
\nRs.10,000\/- \/ Rs.5,000\/- as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  From the materials on  record,  it  is  apparent  that  on
\nearlier  occasions  when the Government had passed orders sanctioning payment,
\nthe Government had sanctioned monthly pension which was being  increased  from
\ntime to  time  as  per  the  different  G.Os issued by the Government.  In the
\nimpugned G.O.Ms.No.255 dated 13.11.2002, (W.P.No.511  of  2003  )  sanctioning
\nlumpsum amount  to these petitioners, no reason has been indicated.  Obviously
\nall the petitioners had applied for grant  of  monthly  pension.    No  reason
\nwhatsoever  has  been  indicated  in the present impugned orders as to why the
\npresent  petitioners  are  only  granted  lumpsum  amount  of  Rs.10,000\/-  or
\nRs.5,000\/- as  the  case may be.  There is nothing on record to indicate as to
\nhow the cases of the present petitioners are in any  way  different  from  the
\nother  grantees who had been sanctioned monthly pension under different G.Os.,
\nnamely, G.O.Ms.No.412 dated 15.12.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 20.7.1993.  For
\nexample, in the matter relating to grant in  respect  of  the  petitioners  in
\nW.P.Nos.  512,  35906,  511,  513  of 2003 and one G.  Srinivasan, nothing has
\nbeen indicated, save and except the narration relating to previous  litigation
\nand the  order  passed by the Court on earlier occasion.  Since such orders do
\nnot indicate any reason and in the counter  affidavit  also  except  narrating
\ndifferent  facts,  nothing  has  been  explained  as  to what is the basis for
\ngranting such lumpsum and not monthly pension, such orders are  liable  to  be
\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n
                6.    Learned   counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  has
\nsubmitted that in the provisions of the Act and the Rules, no guidelines  have
\nbeen given as to when a person should be granted monthly pension and when such
\nperson should be granted lumpsum.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   Under the Rules, a Form has been prescribed indicating in
\nwhat format the application should be made.  One such column relates to income
\nof the applicant.  Similarly  one  other  column  relates  to  the  period  of
\nimprisonment undergone  by  the  applicant.    Similarly,  in  the  Form,  the
\napplicant is also required to indicate  whether  he  is  seeking  for  monthly
\npension or  lumpsum  grant.   Initially when the provisions had been made, the
\nlumpsum grant envisaged was Rs.10,000\/-, whereas monthly pension envisaged was
\nRs.150\/-.  Keeping in view the rate of interest in  those  years,  it  may  be
\ninferred  that  payment  of Rs.150\/- per month, i.e., Rs.1,800\/- per year, was
\nconsidered as almost equivalent to lumpsum payment of Rs.10,000\/-.  Obviously,
\nat that stage, the difference was not perceptible.  It  is  therefore  evident
\nthat  during  those  days  grant  of  lumpsum  amount  or  monthly pension was
\nobviously more or less dependent upon the option given by the applicant.    In
\ncourse of time, however, the amount of monthly pension has steadily increased,
\nwhereas  the  amount  payable  as lumpsum grant has not at all been increased.
\nTherefore, even though initially there was no further  necessity  to  indicate
\nthe  guidelines when lumpsum amount should be granted and when monthly pension
\nshould be granted as such course was dependent upon the option  given  by  the
\napplicant,  the  difference  in  the  amount  of  benefit  as it stands now is
\nmarkedly visible and therefore guidelines should be indicated.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Nowhere in the  guidelines  it  is  indicated  under  what
\ncircumstances  grant  of  monthly  pension  should be permitted and under what
\ncircumstances one time lumpsum payment not  exceeding  Rs.10,000\/-  should  be
\npermitted.   The question is whether in the absence of any such guideline, the
\nprovisions contained in the Act and the Rules delegating  such  power  to  the
\nExecutive authority can be said to be hit by the vice of excessive delegation.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   There  is  a  definite  line  of judicial thinking to the
\neffect that even in the absence of specific guideline, the authority can  take
\ninto consideration the object of the legislation, the mischief which is sought
\nto be  cured  by the legislation and other surrounding circumstances.  In this
\ncontext it is also well accepted that when such authority is conferred on high
\nranking functionary so that the vice of excessive delegation can be said to be
\ndiluted to a large extent.  In the present case, the High Level Committee  has
\nbeen conferred  with such authority.  While such Committee deciding the matter
\ncan always be guided on the object of the legislation, which is  to  recognise
\nand  reward  the  efforts  of the persons who have suffered on account of such
\nmovement.  Apart from the above, the statutory Form in which  the  application
\nis  required to be made contains queries regarding the income of the applicant
\nand the period of imprisonment.  From such information, required to  be  given
\nin the application, it can be reasonably concluded that it is the intention of
\nthe  Legislature  to  come  to  the  financial  aid  of those persons who have
\nsacrificed for the cause of  the  development  of  the  Tamil  language\/State.
\nWhile  identifying  such  persons, if the Committee comes to a conclusion that
\nthe applicant is financially very well-off, there may not be any necessity  of
\ngranting  monthly  pension  to  such  person  and  instead  such person can be
\nhonoured with grant of lumpsum amount.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  As already indicated, initially the two types of  benefit
\nwere almost similar and, therefore, the applicant himself would be praying for
\npayment  of  monthly  pension  or lumpsum grant depending upon his own age and
\nother circumstances.  In view of  the  gross  disparity  in  the  benefit  now
\navailable, obviously, the applicants would always prefer to get the benefit of
\nmonthly pension  rather than the lumpsum grant.  Obviously, the prayer made by
\nsuch applicants is entitled to serious consideration and the Committee  should
\nordinarily accept  the  method of benefit claimed by the applicants.  However,
\neven though for the aforesaid reasons and  keeping  in  view  the  presumption
\nregarding validity of an Act or Rule, the provisions need be granted, it would
\nbe  better  for  the Government to prescribe by Rules the method and norms for
\nidentifying as to whether the applicant should be  given  monthly  pension  or
\nlumpsum payment.  Moreover, even though the amount of monthly pension has been
\nsteadily  increased,  there  has  not  been  any corresponding increase in the
\namount payable as lumpsum grant.  The State Government should do well to  look
\ninto this aspect and appropriately increase the lumpsum payable.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Even  though the provisions of the statute and the Rules
\nare being upheld, albeit reluctantly, the validity of the orders passed by the
\nRespondent No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case are required to  be
\nconsidered.   It  is  obvious  from  the  materials  on  record  that  all the
\napplicants had applied for grant of monthly pension.  From  the  materials  on
\nthe  record  it  is apparent that many similar applications considered earlier
\ntime were decided in favour  of  those  applicants  by  granting  the  monthly
\npension.   As  a  matter of fact all the applicants who had been conferred the
\nbenefit hitherto apart from the present petitioners appear to have been  given
\nthe  benefit  of  monthly  pension  rather than any lumpsum payment, obviously
\nbecause such applicants had prayed for grant  of  monthly  pension.    In  the
\nimpugned  orders  passed by the Government, no reason has been given as to why
\ninstead of granting monthly pension lumpsum payment has been granted.  In  the
\ncounter  affidavit  also  nothing  has been indicated as to why the applicants
\nwere not given the benefit of monthly pension and were merely granted lumpsum.
\nThe only excuse seems to be indicated in the counter is in the following words
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
         …  The court had directed to pass orders in  accordance  with  law
\nwithin a period of four months.  Due to the financial crisis of the State, the
\nGovernment  had  decided to sanction a sum of Rs.10,000\/- to the petitioner as
\nan one time Grant and  issued  G.O.Ms.No.255  Tamil  Development  and  Culture
\nDepartment  dated  13.7.2002  and  sanctioned  a  sum  of  Rs.10,000\/-  to the
\npetitioners as one time grant.<\/p>\n
                12.  In my considered opinion, the so called financial  crisis
\ncannot  be  considered as a sufficient justification for mechanically granting
\nlumpsum grant instead of granting  monthly  pension,  more  particularly  when
\nother applicants  had been given the benefit of monthly pension.  A reading of
\nthe counter affidavit makes it clear that as if the  respondents  were  merely
\ngoing  through  the  formality of complying with the previous direction of the
\nHigh Court possibly because of the pendency of  Contempt  proceeding.    As  a
\nmatter  of  fact,  even  though there was no specific direction in the earlier
\ndecision as to whether monthly pension should be given or lumpsum grant should
\nbe given, it is obvious from the tenor of the judgment that the learned  Judge
\nat that stage intended that these applicants should be treated at par with the
\napplicants  whose  applications  had  been  allowed and who had been given the
\nmonthly pension.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  A contention has been raised by the respondents that  the
\npetitioners  have  already  accepted  the  benefit of grant of Rs.10,000\/- and
\ntherefore their prayer for grant of monthly pension should not be  considered.
\nFrom the materials on record, it is apparent that the applicants have accepted
\nsuch  benefit of Rs.10,000\/- without prejudice to their right to claim monthly
\npension and, therefore, it cannot be said that  such  applicants  have  waived
\ntheir right to claim monthly pension instead of lumpsum grant.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders cannot be
\nsustained and are liable to be quashed.    The  respondents  are  directed  to
\nconsider  the  applications and to take appropriate decision regarding payment
\nof monthly pension.  Since the  applicants  have  already  been  found  to  be
\neligible  by  the respondents, the only question now required to be considered
\nis whether such applicants should be paid monthly pension or not.  This may be
\ndone keeping in view the prayer in the applications made  by  each  individual
\napplicant and  also the financial status of such applicants.  In the event, it
\nis decided to give monthly pension to any applicant, the sum of Rs.10,000\/- or
\nRs.5,000\/- already granted can be adjusted towards such monthly pension.  This
\nexercise should be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date  of
\nreceipt of  the  order.    Accordingly,  the writ petitions are allowed to the
\nextent indicated above.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
dpk <\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Government of Tamil Nadu,
\nrep.  by its Secretary,
\nTamil Development and Culture
\nDepartment, Fort St.  George,
\nChennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Tamil Development
\nand Culture, Kuralagam, Chennai 108.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The District Collector,
\nKanyakumari District at Nagercoil.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WP.No.511 of 2003 to WP.No.516 of 2003, 2365, 3786, 5546, 35879, 35906, 35907, 36160 of 2003, 9403 of 2004 and 1285, 580, 22893 […]<\/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-68740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - 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\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-14T10:32:12+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T10:32:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2964,\"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\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\",\"name\":\"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T10:32:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 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":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - 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\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-14T10:32:12+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T10:32:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006"},"wordCount":2964,"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\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006","name":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T10:32:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mary-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Mary vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 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\/68740","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=68740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}