11634 OF 2002 W.P. NOS. 31753 & 33944 OF 2006 & 10946 v. Tamilnadu Retired Officials Association and its affiliated District and Talukretired Officials association
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 14
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The questions that arise for determination in these casesare :-a) Whether 1st June, 1988, a cut-off date fixed for computationof pension vide G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 is arbitrary ?b) Whether the State Government employees, who retired between1st June, 1988 and 8th…
- Para 1616. No employee has a right to draw the Dearness Allowance as"Dearness Pay" till the State Government decides to treat suchDearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for its employees. Though it isopen to the State Government to treat 'Dearness Allowance' or apart of it as 'Dearness…
- Para 1919. In the present case, we are concerned with the questionwhether the cut-off date, 1st June, 1988, has any nexus or isarbitrary. This question, we have already answered, the StateGovernment having shown its nexus with the object to achieve. So far as the other issue…
Judgment
27 A.JOHN 28 N.MARY SUSEELA 29 S.VEERABAHU 30 K.LALITHA 31 A.SORNAM 32 A.SRINIVASAN 33 V.KRISHNAN 34 R.POONGANI 35 K.ARUMUGAM36 V.RAJESWARI 37 A.BOOMADEVI 38 C.MUTHUKRISHNAN 39 S.SITARAMAN 40 R.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM 41 V.JEYAMANI 42 S.S.PITCHAI 43 P.PEER MOHIDEEN 44 A.SUBBIAH 45 A.AVALI 46 J.VICTORIA 47 I.JOSEPH 48 R.SAROJA 49 A.GOVINDAN 50 K.MANAVALAN 51 A.SAROJINAL 52 P.GOPAL 53 A.AROKKIAMARY 54 R.PONNAMMAL 55 P.MURUGAN56 R.ARASAYEE 57 W.ALBERT 58 S.KAMALA 59 V.MUTHIAH 60 MARIAMMAL 61 M.DHAMAMANI 62 V.MUTHUMANY 63 SALETHAMARY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 64 R.PHILOMINMARY 65 SALATHMARY 66 R.ANTONISAMY 67 T.K.MUTHUVEERAN 68 G.ALBERT DEVADOSS 69 JAYAMANI 70 D.LIZAH 71 A.GANAPATHI 72 S.SAVARIANANDAM 73 P.AYYAVOO 74 NAVANEETHAM GEORGE 75 C.PERIASAMY76 N.S.SAROJA 77 K.DHANDAPANI 78 S.SRINIVASAN 79 S.RAJALAKSHMI 80 P.PANCHANATHAM 81 V.R.CHOCKALINGAM 82 S.GOVINDARAJAN 83 S.AMSADEVI 84 KRISHNAVENI 85 A.M.ARAWAMUTHAN 86 H.THAHIRUNNISA 87 N.NARAYANAN 88 V.BALASUBRAMANIAN 89 T.S.MURUGIAH 90 K.PARAMASIVAM 91 T.K.KANAKAM 92 CHIDAMBARAM 93 N.MAHALINGAM 94 R.V.MEENACHI SOUNDRAM 95 S.VAIRAKILI 96 R.JAYAKUMAR 97 S.KRISHNAVENI 98 R.DEVARAJAN 99 T.S.CHIDAMBARAM 100 P.DHARMALINGAM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 101 K.ALAGAR 102 M.PETER 103 S.ANNAMMAL 104 M.ABRAHAM 105 G.GOPALAKRISHNAMMAL 106 V.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM 107 M.K.V.MALATHY 108 A.KRISHNAMMAL 109 P.MANICKAM 110 A.KALEELUR RAHIMAN 111 S.RAMADEVARU112 R.MARIMUTHU 113 D.S.RAMARAO 114 P.SAMIAPPAN 115 S.RAJAGOPALAN 116 CLEMENT J.FELIX 117 MARGARET ELISABETH FELIX 118 DR. CELIA DOROTHY WHITE 119 D.P.KATTAR SINGH 120 R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN 121 J.ROBERT JOTHIRAJAN 122 S.GOVINDASWAMY 123 VADIRAR MOSES ASIRARON 124 M.KRISHNAN 125 P.MYTRAN 126 J.T.EBENEZER 127 LUCY CHANDRASEGHARAN 128 D.MARY JEBAMAN129 D.JAYAMANI 130 S.KOKILA NAVARAJ 131 ROSE.S.JEBARATNAM 132 MARY EDWIN 133 D.MARAGATHA BAI 134 A.SAMUEL JEBARATNAM 135 T.CHANDRASEGARAN 136 A.S.MUNEER BASHA 137 P.INNACIAMAL https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 138 R.SAVARIAMMAL 139 SUSELA 140 A.V.MANICKARAJ 141 S.SHANMUGAM 142 K.GOVINDAN 143 R.SAROJA 144 V.LATCHMI 145 K.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN 146 G.RAMADOSS 147 B.MEENAKSHI 148 S.IYYAPPAN 149 D.PAKTHAVATSALAM 150 MRS.BABY SAROJA 151 V.HARIRAO 152 K.JEYARAMAN 153 M.C.SIVAPRAKASAM 154 V.RAMAMOORTHY 155 C.PATTAMMAL 156 P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 157 A.V.VAIDYANATHAN 158 C.RETHINASABAPATHI 159 M.RADHAKRISHNAN 160 S.NATARAJAN 161 AMITHAMMAL 162 RUKMANI 163 S.KRISHNAKUMARI 164 S.ANTONY 165 K.PARVATHY 166 A.RAMALAKSHMI 167 H.VASANTHA 168 T.N.GURUNATHAN 169 R.SUBRAMANIAM 170 V.S.RAJAGOPAL 171 P.V.NARASIMHAN 172 V.R.BALARAMAN 173 R.KUPPUSWAMI 174 P.SHANMUGAM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 175 K.K.KAMALABAI 176 K.V.SARASWATHI 177 N.RAMACHARI 178 A.K.SRINIVASAN 179 P.LAKSHMI 180 K.THANGARAJ 181 V.SUNDARAM 182 VASANTHA 183 A.VICTORIA ANGELINA 184 ALAGAMMAL 185 C.SAROJA 186 G.PERIASAMY 187 P.RATHINAM 188 V.RAJAMANICKAM 189 P.NATARAJAN 190 S.NALLAMMAL 191 M.MARY 192 I.ABDUL WAHEED 193 K.BAKTHAVATHCHALAM 194 MARIAMMAL 195 V.SEERALAN 196 C.BALASUBRAMANIAN 197 G.DEVARAJAN 198.B.P. SEETHARAMAN199.
C.GOVINDASAMY 200 ANADHANAN 201 P.ALICE 202 K.SHANMUGA SUNDRA VADIVU 203 P.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN 204 S.SIVARAJAN 205 S.NATARAJAN 206 S.VARADARAJAN 207 S.SUBBAIAN 208 M.I.JACOB 209 V.SIVARAJAN 210 R.JENBAGAVALLI 211 T.M.SRINIVASAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 212 A.R.REVATHI 213 M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN 214 I.RAMASAMY215 M.NATARAJAN 216 K.SUBRAMANIAN 217 T.RATHINASABAPATHY 218 I.AUTHITHAN 219 R.PONNUCHAMI 220 R.N.HARIHARAN 221 S.RAMANATHAN 222 T.SIVANESAN 223 T.K.SESHADRI 224 M.SUNDARAMBAL 225 S.SIVANDHANAVALLI 226 A.BHAGIRATHI BAI 227 A.V.MATHURAM 228 SANKARAVADIVU 229 G.KRISHNAMOORTHY ... PETITIONERSW.P.33944/061 N. ARUL SENGUTTUVAN 2 N. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN 3 K.KANNIAPPAN4 S.N. ABDUL RAHIM 5 V. RAMASAMY 6 G. SHANMUAM 7 R. RAJAMMAL 8 S. THUNDIAN 9 V. DEVAGI 10 G. CHANDRA SEKARA GUPTA 11 K. MUTHUNATESAN 12 P. RAMASAMY 13 M MANICKAM 14 K. GOMATHY 15 A. SAVARIAMMAL https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16 BACKIALAKSHMI 17 R. BAGYALAKSHMI 18 S.P. CHELLIAH 19 P. ARUMUGAM 20 R. PAPPAIYAN 21 T. MUTHULAKSHMI 22 M. SAKTHIVEL 23 M. RAJAMMAL 24 K. SUKUMARAN 25 S. SHANMUGAM 26 M. SIKKANDER BATCHA 27 C. NATARAJAN 28 S. MEENAKSHIAMMAL 29 C.PAUL FRANCIS 30 B. JESSIE NAVAMANI 31 T. THINAMANI 32 T.SIVALINGAM 33.L. VEDAMANICKAM 34 D. SAKUNTHALA 35 T.JAYALAKSHMI 36 M. NARAYANASWAMY 37 A.K. RAMASAMY 38 K. CHINNASAMY 39 S.JESSAMMAL 40 L. KAMALA 41 N. SAHUL HAMEED 42 S. SADAIAPPAN 43 R.KASIVISLAKSHI 44 S.VELUMAYIL 45 K NATCHIAPPAN 46 S.SARATCHANDRAN 47 K. DHANAM 48 P. RAJAMANICKAM 49 S. MUTHUSAMY 50 V. KITTAMMAL 51 T. KUPPANNAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 52 K. VADIVEL 53 S. JAYALAKSHMI 54 T. PARAMASIVAN 55 P RAJESWARI 56 R. PAPPA 57 R.V. RAMASAMY 58 A. KARUPPUSAMY 59 S.M. CHOKKALINGAM 60 S. PALANISAMY 61 R. MARTHAL 62 K. DEVANA GOUNDER 63 K.KARUPPATHAL 64 K.V. RAMASAMY 65 R.PERUMAL 66 A. BASKARASETHUPATHY 67 N. SUBBIAN 68 J. PHILOMINAL 69 S. FEBELL JEEVAGI 70 S. JESSAMMAL 71 P.VELAMMAL 72 N. NACHIMUTHU 73 T. PONNUSAMY 74 V.DURAIRAJ 75 T. POTHILINGAM 76 C. EDDYSAMUEL 77 T. THANGARAJ 78 A. KULANDAIVADIVEL 79 G. PALANIAMMAL 80 S. RENGANATHAN 81 T. PALANICHAMY 82 K. DURAIYAN 83 S. PAPPAL 84 V.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN 85 R. RAJESWARI 86 K. MARUTHAMUTHU 87 P. GANAPATHI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 88 P. SUBRAMANIAM 89 R. BHAGIRATHI 90 N. VENKATARMAN 91 M. PANDI 92 A. MARIMUTHU 93 S. GRACE 94 D. MERCY 95 UMSALMA BEEVI 96 D.MERCY 97 VARADHARAJULU 98 S. PARVADHAVARDHINI 99 V. MANOHARAN 100 M. EASWARI 101 PS. SOMASUNDARM 102 T ARUMUGAM 103 S. KANDASAMY104 M. MUTHUNAGARATHINAM 105 A.CHELLAMUTHU 106 A. GNANAMBAL ABRAHAM 107 B.ANANDAPADMANABHAN 108 D MARUTHASALAM 109 R. RANJITHAM 110 S. ALIMABIBI 111 S.M. CHOKKALINGM 112 M. GOMATHI 113 R. RAJESWARI 114 S.SUNDARA BAI 115 C. NATANASABAPATHY 116 P. KALIMUTHU 117 PS. ABDUL 118 P. PAPPAYAL 119 P.MUNIAMMAL 120 S. SENGIAH 121 K.KANNAMMAL 122 P.V. SANKARANARYANAN 123 J. SARWESWARAN 124 K. PALANIKUMAR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 125 VICTORIA NAVAMONI 126 P. RATHINASABAPATHY 127 K VARADHARAJAN 128 J. MUNEESWARASAMY 129 C.K. MANICKAM 130 R. ALAGUMALAI 131 K. VANNIMUTHU 132 K. RAMADOSS 133 R. MUTHUKRISHNAN 134 M. THIRUVARIENKARAYALAR 135 A.P. ARUMUGAM 136 A. SELVARAJ 137 S. SARASWATHI 138 M.PERUMAL 139 M. MURUGESAN 140 D.K. RUKUMANI 141 K.BALASUBRMANIAN 142 V.S. VADIVELU 143 P. JAYARMAN 144 M PALANISAMY 145 A RAJAMMAL 146 I PITCHAI 147 LOGAMBAL SIVANMALAI 148 S. DEVAIRAKKAM 149 P. KUMARAVEL 150 P. MOHAMED GHOUSE 151 K. RAMASAMY 152 N. MAOHARA SOPHIA 153 M. CHOCKALINGAM 154 A. JAYARAMAN 155 M. ALAKAMMAL 156 A. NACHIMUTHU 157 V. KRISHYNAVENI 158 K. SADAYAPPAN 159 K. THANGAELAMMAL 160 K.L. VIJAYAMMA ... PETITIONERS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.12197/071.V.C.PAPPATHI 2 C.PALANIMANICKAM 3 B.PARAMESWARI 4 REV.FR.R.RAPHAEL 5 K.SANJEEVAN 6 N.R.PADMANABHAN 7 S.PALANISAMY 8 M.T.KARUNAKARAN 9 K.R.GOWRI 10 M.MUTHUSAMY 11 P.PERUMAL 12 S.MARIAPUSHPAM 13 P.ALAGAPPAN 14 K.MOHAMMED 15 R.RAGHUPATHI 16 S.PALANISAMY 17 S.VENKATARAMAN 18 S.VIJAYALAKSHMI 19 T.SUBBULAKSHMI 20 T.SUBBULAKSHMI 21 A.THIRUVNNAMALAI 22 G.NEELAKANTAN 23 R.SAMBANDAM 24 R.BAVANANDAM 25 B.RAJESWARI 26 T.P.SELVARAJ 27 K.NANDAGOPAL 28 A.MARIA DAI MERCY 29 R.SRINIVASAN 30 S.P.S.GANESAN 31 P.S.MAHADEVAN ... PETITIONERS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.13514/071 K.GOVINDARAJAN 2 N.G.RAMANUJAM 3 S.SAMBANDAM 4 S.MOHAMED HASSAN 5 PITCHAIAMMAL 6 A.SHANMUGAVEL 7 KAMALA SRINIVASAN 8 V.GURUSAMY 9 HEBZIBA GLORY GNANAMANI 10 R.LOURDU MARY 11 L.CHOCKALINGAM 12 P.KUMARAVEL 13 K.P.RAMAYYAN 14 N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN 15 V.KUMARASWAMI 16 M.S.SHANMUGAM 17 C.SANKARA PULAVAR 18 A.ESAKKI KONE 19 S.MUTHIAH KONE 20 R.MUTHUKRISHNA KONE 21 P.GOVINDAN 22 R.PALANIAMMAL 23 A.SUBRAMANIAN 24 P.DAMODARAN 25 R.SEETHALAKSHMI 26 R.NAGABOOSHANAM 27 A.NEETHIMAN 28 J.GOMATHY 29 J.S.CHELLAMUTHU 30 S.PALANIAMMAL 31 M.PARAMASIVAM 32 S.ABDUL RASHEED 33 G.ANNALAKSHMI 34 K.SANTHA https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 35 V.VANAJA 36 M.MANGAIYARKARASI 37 P.MANICKAM 38 K.SUSEELA 39 JAGATHAMBAL 40 N.ANTONY AMMAL 41 K.PANDITHILAGAM 42 G.PARAMESWARAN 43 S.VENKATARAMAN 44 M.P.MUNIYANDI 45 S.SEBASTIAN 46 S.SAVARIMUTHU 47 SESHAMMAL 48 K.BIRAHADAMBAL 49 TMT.KASIAMMAL 50 M.MEENAKSHI 51 MEIVAZHI VASANTHATHI ANANDAR 52 P.AROCKIYAMERY 53 DR.M.KALIKUZ ZAMAN 54 DR.N.VENUGOPAL 55 C.KANDASAMY 56 R.JAYALAKSHMI 57 P.SHANMUGAM 58 S.GOVINDAN 59 K.VARADAPPAN 60 V.R.JAGATHRAMAN ... petitionersW.P.15353/071 R.SRINIVASAN 2 L.ANGALISWARAN 3 S.NARASIMHAN 4 R.MEENAKSHI 5 P.MARAGATHAM 6 K.PARAMASIVAM 7 S.K.ABDUL SALAM 8 G.S.RAMALINGAM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 G.S.RAMASAMY 10 V.N.CHANDRASEKARA RAO 11 M.MOHANASUNDARAM 12 S.SAMBANDAN 13 D.R.YESSU THANGARAJ 14 D.R.YESSU THANGARAJ 15 ALAMELU AMMAL 16 S.V.PERUMAL 17 B.MEENAKSHI 18 K.NARAYANASAMY 19 A.S.PARVATHI 20 S.JAMBULINGAM 21 M.AYOTHIRAMAN 22 P.M.THIRUGNANAM 23 S.SUNDARARAJAN 24 P.MANOHARAN 25 S.PANDIAN 26 M.GURUSAMY 27 S.ANGAMMAL 28 M.V.PERIASAMY 29 H.ESAKKIMUTHU 30 S.VELAYUTHAM 31 C.KANDASWAMY 32 P.SELVAVINAYAGAM 33 D.SILAMBIAH 34 N.SUBBULAKSHMI 35 A.SUBBIAH 36 P.AGASTHIAN 37 V.M.SELVARAJ 38 M.RAMASUBRAMANIAM 39 DR.K.SANKARAN 40 P.SANKARASUBBU 41 M.SHANMUGAIAH 42 S.REGINALD 43 C.KAMALA 44 S.MUTHUSAMY 45 T.BAGYALAKSHMI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 46 M.SUBEDA BEGAM 47 SAROJINIAMMAL 48 P.K.VEERAVARAJA 49 S.VISWARAMASUBRAMANIAN 50 G.MUTHULAKSHMI 51 T.MAHALAKSHMI 52 S.NARAYANAN 53 P.M.PERIASAMY 54 P.R.VISWANATHAN 55 V.ARUMUGAM 56 J.RAMACHANDRAN 57 M.S.SUBRAMANIAN 58 S.VEDAM 59 KULANDAI THERESA 60 D.KULANDAI THERESA 61 K.SAROJA 62 V.NARASIMHAN 63 SEETHALAKSHMI 64 S.KALYANI 65 T.INDIRA 66 S.KRISHNAMOORTHY 67 P.VENKATACHALAM 68 N.E.THOMAS 69 K.GANAPATHI 70 A.R.GURUNATHAN 71 K.VENKATACHALAM 72 M.AMBIGAI VELU 73 P.CHINNATHAMBI 74 P.B.BHEEMAN 75 N.SARASWATHY 76 R.JESUDOSS 77 V.NATARAJAN 78 K.ARUNACHALAM 79 O.KRISNAN 80 S.VEERASAMY 81.
V. A YACUB ... PETITIONERS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.10946 of 20071 K.RANGASAMY 2 P.KANDASAMY3 M.PILLAYAR 4 A.P.SUBRAMANIAM 5 K.SUBRAMANIAM 6 C.MUNIASAMY 7 V.MAHALINGAM8 M.BALAKRISHNAN 9 G.SHANMUGAM 10 N.SIVASUBRAMANIAM11 N.KALIAMURTHY 12 V.VENKATASUBBIAN 13 P.S.SUBRAMANIAN 14 S.PADMAVATHI 15 P.THANGANATHAN ... Petitioner in W.P.10946/07The Accountant GeneralTeynampet, Chennai-6... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.11062 and 11634 of 2002 Judicial MagistrateSankagiri, Salem District. The State of Tamilnadurep. by the Deputy Secretary to Government Home (Courts-5) DepartmentSecretariat, Chennai-9... Respondent 3 and 4 in W.P.No.11062/02The Judicial Magistrate NO.IISankari, Salem DistrictThe RegistrarHigh Court of JudicatureMadras.... Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.NO.11634/02The CommissionerGudiyatham MunicipalityGudiyatham, Vellore District... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.12197/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The CommissionerTirunelveli MunicipalityTirunelveli DistrictThe ExaminerLocal Fund AccountsMadras.... Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.13514 / 07W.A.No.1002 of 2006 Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent writ appeal tothis Honourable Court against the order of the HonourableMr.
Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar dated 23.2.2006 made inW.P.No.26741 of 2005.This Writ Petition came to be transferred by way of transferof O.A.NO.5672 of 2002 from the file of Tamilnadu AdministrativeTribunal with a prayer to direct the respondent to implement theG.O.371 Finance (Pension) Department dated 30.4.1986 in letter and Spirit to all the members of the petitioner/ Association and themembers of its affiliated Associations in the state of Tamilnadu.W.A.9 and 75 /2007:-Appeal under clause 15 of the letterspatent Writ Appeal to this Honourable Court against the order ofthe Honourable Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar dated 20.4.2006in W.P.Nos.32045/05 and 32089 of 2005 respectively. Writ Petition come to be numbered by way of transfer ofO.A.NO.1162/2003 from the file of the Tamilnadu AdministrativeTribunal to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call forrecords of the respondent relating to its proceedings inG.O.Ms.No.810 Finance (PC) Department dated 9.8.89 and quash thesame in so far as the it directs the pensionary benefits of anemployee retired/ retiring on or after 1.6.88 be completed byadding dearness allowances with pay at fixed percentage rates andconsequently direct the respondent to extend the benefits conferredunder G.O.MS.No.272 and 273 dated 15.6.98 to the members of thepetitioners association.W.P.11062 of 2002:- Petition presented to issue a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of thefourth respondent passed in his proceedings in LetterNo.7166/Nee.
Ma.5/99-3 dated 29.9.1999 the quash the same and directthe respondents to pay the pensionery benefits by taking 100% basicpay into account for each and every month atleast from 1.12.1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.11634 of 2002:- Petition presented to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on thepetitioners representations dated 8.3.1999, 20.6.99 and 7.3.2002 orany other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writor any other appropriate relief and Petitioners presented to issue a writs of mandamus directingthe respondent to extend the benefit of adding the entire D.A.Actually drawn by the employees retired during the period of 10months proceeding to the retirement for reckoning averageemoluments and for computing pension to those retired in between1.1.88 to 31.12.1995 since the benefit had already been extended tothose retired up to 31.12.87 as per G.O.Ms.No.371 (Pen) dated30.4.86 consequent on the Judgement dated 6.5.96 in O.A.4953/92 byT.A.T which was implemented by government in G.O.Ms.No.272 and 273fin(Pen) Department dated 15.6.1998 record with G.O.449 fin(Pension) Department dated 12.10.1999 and Government letterNo.95284 (PC) 2000-01 dated 3.5.2001 to all the pensioners retiredfrom 1.1.88 to 31.12.1995 with all consequential pensionarybenefits with arrears.
(W.P.No.31753/06, 33944/06, 12197/07,10946/07, 13514/07, and 15353/07 respectively. For Appellants: Mr. P.S.Raman, AAG, assisted by Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP in all WAsFor Petitioners : Mr. R.Singaravelan in WP 11062 & 11634/02 Mr. S.M.Subramanian in WP 31753 & 33944 of 2006, 10946/07, 12197, 13514 & 15353/07For Respondents: Mr. P.S.Raman, AAG, assisted by Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP in all WPs Mr. S.M.Subramanian in WA 1002/06 Mr. V.Vijay Shankar in WA 9 & 75/07COMMON JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.In all these cases as common question of law involved, theywere heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
In one of the writ petition, W.P. No.11062/02, thepetitioner prayed to quash the decision contained in letterNo.7166/Nee. Ma.5/99-3 dated 29th Sept., 1999, with further prayer todirect the authorities to pay pension taking into consideration100% basic pay with effect from 1st Dec., 1999.In W.P. No.11634/02, prayer has been made to decide therepresentation relating to Dearness Allowance based on last paydrawn for the purpose of pension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the other writ petitions, W.P. No.10946, 12197 , 13514 and15353 of 2007, prayer has been made for direction on respondents togrant pensionary benefits by adding the entire Dearness Allowanceactually drawn by the employees for the purpose of emoluments andpension and, thereby, to provide similar benefit as provided toemployees, who retired upto 31st Dec., 1987, consequent uponjudgment of the Administrative Tribunal implemented vide G.O. Ms.No.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1992, G.O. Ms. No.449 dated12th Oct., 1999 and Letter No.95284 (PC) dated 3rd May, 2001.In fact, similar prayers were earlier made in other writpetitions. In one of the writ petition, W.P. No.26741/05, prayerwas made to implement G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986 issuedfrom Finance (Pension) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in itsletter and spirit for the members of Tamil Nadu Retired OfficialsAssociation. It was allowed by learned single Judge by order dated23rd Feb., 2006 only on the ground that the position was notdisputed by the Government Advocate. No decision having given onmerit, a writ appeal has been preferred against the same by the State. Another writ petition, W.P. No.32045/05 (T) was preferred by Kallakurichi Retired Officials Association for extension of benefitgranted to members of association as conferred under G.O. Ms.Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998. It having been allowedby learned single Judge vide judgment dated 20th April, 2006,another writ appeal has been preferred by the State. Similar relief was sought for by one Tamil Nadu RuralDevelopment Department Pensioners Association in W.P. No.32089/05(T), which was also allowed by learned single Judge vide orderdated 20th April, 2006 in view of judgment passed in W.P.No.32045/05, which is also under challenge in a third writ appeal.
The questions that arise for determination in these casesare :-a) Whether 1st June, 1988, a cut-off date fixed for computationof pension vide G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 is arbitrary ?b) Whether the State Government employees, who retired between1st June, 1988 and 8th Aug., 1989, are also entitled for pension interms with calculation prescribed vide G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273,both dated 15th June, 1998 read with G.O. Ms. No.449 dated 12th Oct.,1999 and letter No.95284 (PC) dated 3rd May, 2001 ?4. It is not in dispute that the retired employees of the State of Tamil Nadu are entitled for pension under the Tamil NaduPension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules'),which is fixed on the basis of the emoluments the employee wasreceiving/entitled to immediately before his retirement. The'emoluments' includes certain allowances apart from pay under Rule30 of the Pension Rules.5.
Instructions were issued by the State from time to timeprescribing the manner and percentage of allowances for calculation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of pension. On the recommendation of a Dearness AllowanceCommittee, by a G.O. Ms. No.115, dated 6th Feb., 1975, issued from Finance (Pension) Department, it was recommended to treat theexisting rates of Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" so as togrant the benefit of pension, gratuity, etc. Subsequently, the 4thTamil Nadu Pay Commission recommended to treat the DearnessAllowance as "Dearness Pay" at the end of three years for thepurpose of pension. Pay revision was given effect from 1st Oct.,1984. In view of such recommendation, a G.O. Ms. No.371, dated 30thApril, 1986, was issued from Finance (Pension) Department. But therecommendation was accepted and implemented only in respect ofemployees, who will retired on or after 1st Oct., 1987, vide letterNo.70707-A/Pension/86-1 dated 8th July, 1986, which reads as follows:-"The Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has amongother things recommended that at the end of aperiod of three years, the Dearness Allowancesanctioned upto that period could be treated as Dearness Pay in order to ensure a reasonablepension level.
The Government accept the above recommendation ofthe Commissioner and direct that in the case of Government Servants who will be retiring on orafter 1.10.87 the Dearness Allowance sanctionedupto 1.10.87 shall be reckoned as Dearness Pay forthe purpose of pension. In the case of death ofthe Government Servants occurring on or after1.10.87 while in service the Dearness Allowancesanctioned upto 1.10.87 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of computing Familypension. "6. One 'Ambasamudaram Taluk Pensioners Association' andanother 'Sankarankoil Taluk Pensioners Association' preferred twoapplications before the then Tamil Nadu State AdministrativeTribunal, being O.A. Nos. 2227/92 and 4953/92 and prayed to issuedirection on State to allow the benefit of 'Dearness Pay' asordered in G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986 to those, whoretired prior to 1st Oct., 1987. Such prayer was made on the groundthat the pensioners are one homogeneous class and fixing of a cut-off date of 1st Oct., 1987 had no nexus with the object to achieve.
Both the aforesaid applications were allowed by the StateAdministrative Tribunal and the cut-off date as was fixed wasquashed with direction to the State to allow the benefit of Dearness Pay even to those, who retired prior to 1st Oct., 1987,apart from those, who retired between 1st Oct., 1987 and 31st May,1988 (as 5th Pay Commission's recommendation was given effect from1st June, 1988). Against the said order the State moved uptoSupreme Court but having lost, had to issue one G.O. Ms. No.272,Finance (Pension) Department dated 15th June, 1998 allowing entireDearness Allowance/Additional Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay"for the purpose of calculation of pension to those, who retiredbetween 1st April, 1979 to 31st May, 1988. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ At this stage it is pertinent to note that G.O. Ms. No.371dated 30th April, 1986, by which it was ordered to treat DearnessAllowance as "Dearness Pay" at the end of three years had also beenquashed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the entire DearnessAllowance actually drawn by employees between 1st April, 1979 to 31stMay, 1988 was treated as Dearness Pay in view of the Court's order.
The G.O. Ms. No.272 dated 15th June, 1998 was followed byanother G.O. Ms. No.273 dated 15th June, 1998, issued from Finance(Pension) Department extending this benefit to the employees whoretired during 2nd Oct., 1970 and 31st Jan., 1975. Thereby, thedecision to treat Dearness Allowance as 'Dearness Pay' for thepurpose of calculation of pension of the employees retired between2nd Oct., 1970 to 31st Oct., 1975 and 1st Oct., 1979 to 30th Sept.,1987 reached finality vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 272 and 273, both dated15th June, 1998.7. In the meantime, the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission'srecommendation was accepted and pay and pension were revised witheffect from 1st June, 1988 by G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989,issued from Finance (Pension) Department. It was directed tocompute the pensionary benefits of employees, who retired/retiringon or after 1st June, 1988 by adding Dearness Pay along with the payat the following percentage rates :-Pay Range(1)Rate of Dearness Pay(2)(i)Upto Rs.3,50013 per cent of pay (ii)Above Rs.3,500 but notexceeding Rs.6,0009 per cent of pay subjectto a minimum of Rs.455(iii)Above Rs.6,0008 per cent of pay subjectto minimum of Rs.540The aforesaid G.O. Ms.
No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, waschallenged before this Court in W.P. Nos.32045/05 (T) and 32089/05(T). By impugned orders, both dated 20th April, 2006, learnedsingle Judge allowed the writ petitions, which is under challengein two of the present writ appeals.8. Before the writ court as also this Bench, learned counselfor the petitioners (respondents in writ appeals) submitted thatthe action of the respondents is contrary to Rule 13 of the PensionRules, which stipulates fixation of pension on the basis of tenmonths average pay last drawn by a Government Servant. Further, according to them, the action of the State in not taking intoaccount of the entire Dearness Allowance for the purpose of pensionis illegal and contrary to the judgment of the State AdministrativeTribunal, as confirmed by the Supreme Court and the Tamil NaduPension Rules. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that theslab system, which was introduced for computation of pensiondepending on the pay scale, amounts to taking away the benefitsearlier granted, which causes financial loss to the retiredemployees retiring on or after 1st June, 1988.
No reason has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shown to deny the benefits to those who retired between 1st June,1988 till 31st Dec., 1988 and, thereby, it was alleged that theaction of the State in discriminating pensioners is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, according to them, there is no rational or logic in fixingthe cut-off date as 1st June, 1988 and as the retired employees forma single homogeneous class, no discrimination can be made. Before learned single Judge, counsel for the State, whilerelied on different circulars and Government Orders issued fromtime to time, submitted that since Pay Commission nowhererecognised merger of Dearness Allowance to the pensioners, Government had decided not to give the benefits to the pensionersand there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.9. Learned single Judge, by impugned judgment dated 20th April,2006, noticed the following facts :-The Government had appointed a D.A. Committee for makingrecommendation and to fix Dearness Allowance for the pensioners.
The said Committee submitted its report, which the Governmentaccepted and implemented vide G.O. Ms. No.115 dated 6th Feb., 1979.In the said G.O., it is clearly stated that the Government'sintention is that all the Government Servants retiring on or after1st Feb., 1975, should derive the full benefit of the merger of theexisting Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay and directed that the Dearness Allowance actually drawn by Government Servant retiring onor after 1st Feb., 1975, during the ten months prior to theirretiring, may be treated as pay for calculating their pension. Thesaid benefit was restricted to a class of employees, which was heldillegal by the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed to provide suchbenefit as no discrimination could be made between pensioners. Learned single Judge, while observed that the 'DearnessAllowance' is fixed based on the price index and is payable notonly to persons in service, but also to the pensioners, held that Dearness Allowance should be treated as pay for the purpose ofpension.10.
Similar plea has been taken by the parties before us aswas taken before learned single Judge. Apart from othersubmissions, learned Addl. Advocate General, while referred to theformula for computing pension, as contained in G.O. Ms. No.810dated 9th Aug., 1989, submitted that if G.O. Ms. Nos. 272 and 273,both dated 15th June, 1998, is made applicable to those retiredafter 1st June, 1988, it will create anomaly and huge gap betweenthose retired prior to 1st June, 1988 and those who retiredthereafter, which will violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.11. For determination of the issues, it is desirable to noticethe judgment passed by the Tamil Nadu State AdministrativeTribunal, as affirmed by Supreme Court apart from the relevantG.Os., as issued by the State from time to time and referred toabove. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Before the Tribunal, the members of different pensionersassociations challenged the cut-off date of 1st Oct., 1987 as wasfixed for computing pension by G.O. Ms.
No.371 dated 30th April,1986 and the consequential orders. The State Government havingfailed to explain the relevancy of such cut-off date fixed therein, the Tribunal held the cut-off date as arbitrary and illegal. Apartfrom Supreme Court decisions relied upon for coming to suchconclusion the relevant facts were noticed to find out as to howthe Dearness Allowance was clubbed with the pay for computingpension.12. It will be evident from the judgment dated 20th April,2006, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.32045/05 asfollowed in the other case that no argument was advanced nor anydetermination has been made on the issue whether the cut-off dateof 1st June, 1988 fixed vide G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 isarbitrary. In fact, no suggestion was made by learned counselappearing on behalf of the contesting respondents to the writappeals as to why the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988 should be heldarbitrary.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing onbehalf of the State brought to the notice of the court therelevancy of the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988, as therecommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was accepted and giveneffect from 1st June, 1988.13. It will be evident from G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug.,1988 that the Government had carefully examined the recommendationof the 5th Pay Commission's recommendation in the light of thedecision to grant fitment of pay to serving employees at 600 pointsof All India Consumer Price Index level. Accordingly, the Government enhanced the minimum pension and family pension toRs.375/=. As the revised formula for calculation of family pensionrecommended by the 5th Pay Commission would result in reduction offamily pension adversely affecting those already retired and willretire in the revised scales of pay, the existing pattern ofcalculation of family pension was allowed to be continued.14.
Relevancy of the cut-off date is also reflected from para-3 of G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, which is quoted hereunder:-"3. Based on the recommendations of the fourthTamil Nadu Pay Commission, employees retiring on orafter 1st October, 1987 were permitted computationof pensionary benefits treating the dearnessallowance and additional dearness allowance at 687points paid upto 1st October, 1987 as "DearnessPay". As the fixation of pay in the revised scalesof pay recommended by the Fifth Tamil Nadu PayCommission has been made by merging dearnessallowance paid upto 608 points of all IndiaConsumer Price Index, those employeesretired/retiring after drawal of revised pay wouldbe getting lesser emoluments comprising of pension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plus dearness allowance compared to that of thoseretired under the pre-revised scales of pay. TheGovernment have examined this anomalous situationand decided to grant "Dearness Pay".
Theyaccordingly direct that pensionary benefits ofemployees retired/retiring on or after 1st June,1988 be computed by adding "Dearness Pay" alongwith pay at the following percentage rates :-Pay Range(1)Rate of Dearness Pay(2)(i)Upto Rs.3,50013 per cent of pay (ii)Above Rs.3,500 butnot exceedingRs.6,0009 per cent of pay subjectto a minimum of Rs.455(iii)Above Rs.6,0008 per cent of pay subjectto minimum of Rs.54015. In the judgment passed by learned single Judge, whilereferring the submission of the counsel for the writ petitioners, Rule 13 has been referred. We feel it is a mistake and it shouldbe Rule 30 (Emoluments), as Rule 13 deals with counting of serviceas apprentice, which has nothing to do with the present case. Wehave noticed that Rule 30 relates to emoluments for the purpose ofcalculating pension, which includes pay and other allowance, asquoted hereunder :-"30. Emoluments – In the rules, unless thecontext otherwise requires, --(1) Emoluments mean and include --(i) pay, other than special pay granted inview of his personal qualifications, whichhas been sanctioned for a post held by himsubstantively or in an officiating capacity(including temporary capacity under emergencyprovisions) or to which he is entitled byreason of his position in a cadre; (ii) special pay, dearness pay and personalpay; and(iii) any other remuneration which may bespecially claused as emoluments by the Government.
"From the aforesaid provision it will be evident that apartfrom pay, special pay, "Dearness Pay" and personal pay are alsoaccounted, if paid to one or other employee. The said scheme (Rule30) for computation of pension is applicable to all the employeesirrespective of the date on which he may retire, but all theemployees cannot claim for same quantum of pension, as it isdependant on pay as was paid to one or other employee and thespecial pay or personal pay or dearness pay if allowed. Thus, though retired employees form one class of homogeneous group forthe purpose of determination of pension under Rule 30, but quantumof their pension may vary, being dependant on the pay, etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
No employee has a right to draw the Dearness Allowance as"Dearness Pay" till the State Government decides to treat suchDearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for its employees. Though it isopen to the State Government to treat 'Dearness Allowance' or apart of it as 'Dearness Pay' for the purpose of computation ofpension, it is also open to the State Government not to treat suchDearness Allowance at all as Dearness Pay for the purpose ofcomputation of pay. For example, Dearness Allowance was never treated as DearnessPay. It is only in the year 1974, the State Government, vide G.O.Ms. No.1009, Finance, dated 17th July, 1974, constituted a D.A.Committee to examine and report the extent to which it will beproper to reckon "a portion of Dearness Allowance" being paid as'Dearness Pay' so as to benefit the employees of the StateGovernment in respect of pensionary benefits. (Emphasis Added).The recommendation was accepted vide G.O. Ms. No.115 dated 6th Feb.,1975 and only part of the Dearness Allowance was treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of calculation of pension. Though "part of Dearness Allowance" was treated as full"Dearness Pay" for the purpose of pension by aforesaid G.O. Ms.No.115 dated 6th Feb., 1975, but "Dearness Allowance" was nevertreated as "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of computation of pay. For the first time, recently, 'a part of Dearness Allowance' hasbeen treated as "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of determination ofpay with effect from January, 2006.In this background, we are of the view that it is for theemployer to decide whether 'Dearness Allowance' could be treated as'Dearness Pay' and it is also open to such employer to determinewhether 'a part of the Dearness Allowance' can be treated as full'Dearness Pay' for the purpose of computing pension.
We have already noticed that 1st June, 1988, the cut-offdate had a nexus, pay of the employees having been revised from thesaid date pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. It was brought to our notice by the learned Addl. Advocate Generalthat the employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988, they weregetting salary in the unrevised scales of pay. On the other hand, those who retired on or after 1st June, 1988, for the purpose ofcalculation of pay, their pay was calculated in the revised scale, which is much higher than the unrevised scales of pay. We have also noticed the All India Consumer Price Index, asreferred to in G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 and highlightedby the learned Addl. Advocate General. It appears that on thebasis of All India Consumer Price Index, the Dearness Allowance was687 points prior to 1st June, 1988. The 5th Pay Commissionrecommended, as accepted by the State Government, to merge DearnessAllowance upto 608 points of All India Consumer Price Index towardsrevised pay. Thus, those who were in service and retired on orafter 1st June, 1988, in their case, along with the pay in the oldscale, Dearness Allowance to the extent of 608 points of All IndiaConsumer Price Index had already been included. It is only therest part of the Dearness Allowance, i.e., about 79 points, whichwas not included with the pay of those, who retired on or after 1stJune, 1988. As 79 points for the purpose of slab comes to 13% for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those getting pay range upto Rs.3,500/=, 9% for those who weregetting pay range between Rs.3,500 to Rs.6,000/= and 8% for thosewho were getting pay range above Rs.6,000/=, it was decided to addonly such percentage of Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" forcomputation of pension.
Learned Addl. Advocate General, while submitted that thepension of those, who retired in the unrevised scales of pay, priorto 1st June, 1988 or those who retired in the revised scales of payon or after 1st June, 1988 will be the same, this fact was disputedby counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the parties circulated their respectivecalculations showing working sheet of pension as admissible to aclass of employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 in theunrevised scales of pay and those similarly situated and retiredafter 1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. Charts arevarying. While in the chart submitted by the State Government ithas been shown that those who retired after 1st June, 1988 will begetting a little bit higher than those who retired prior to 1stJune, 1988, the calculation submitted by individual parties showsthat those who retired just prior to 1st June, 1988 may get a littlehigher emoluments than those who retired after 1st June, 1988.
Itis for the said reason, we also sought for opinion from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, who has submitted its calculationchart, as circulated between the parties and quoted hereunder :-"As per instructions of the Honourable High Courtof Madras in WP 11634/02, the working sheetssubmitted by both the Government and thepetitioners in WA 1002 of 2006 have beenscrutinized and the following observations aremade.A. Government Working Sheet :Details of the CaseAs it isAs it shouldbeDesignation : TahsildarDate of Retirement :31.05.1988Scale of Pay : Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950Pay Rs.1880Rs.1387Rs.1573*Designation : TahsildarDate of Retirement : After01.06.1988Scale of Pay : Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200Pay Rs.2300Rs.1534Rs.1534* If G.O.271/579 revision is applied in this case, then the revised pension from 1.6.88 works out toRs.2000 + 18% DA.B. Petitioners Working Sheet : Out of nineillustrations, five cases are found to be correctand in four cases the correct calculations aregiven below : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Details of the CaseAs it isAs it shouldbeDesignation : DeputyCollector ('A')Date of Retirement :30.04.1988Scale of Pay : Rs.1340-75-1715-90-2435Pay Rs.2435Rs.2433(From1.6.88)Rs.6402(From1.1.96)Rs.2589(From1.6.88)Rs.6808(From1.1.96)Designation : BlockDevelopment Officer ('A')Date of Retirement :31.01.1988Scale of Pay : Rs.1045-45-1450-65-1675Pay Rs.1515Rs.849(From1.2.88)Rs.1427(From1.6.88)Rs.4303(From1.1.96)Rs.947(From1.2.88)Rs.1592(From1.6.88)Rs.4796(From1.1.96)Designation : SecondaryGrade Teacher ('A') (Sel.
Grade)Date of Retirement :31.12.1987Scale of Pay : Rs.Pay Rs.820/-Rs.472(From1.1.88)Rs.815(From1.6.88)Rs.2480(From1.1.96)Rs.513(From1.2.88)Rs.890(From1.6.88)Rs.2703(From1.1.96)Designation : Tahsildar('B')Date of Retirement :31.03.90Scale of Pay : Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950Pay : Rs.2120 from 1.1.89 Rs.2180/- from1.1.90Rs.1232(From1.4.90)Rs.3723(From1.1.96)Rs.1209(From1.4.90)Rs.3654(From1.1.96)It is certified that subject to the observationsmade supra the illustrative calculations are inorder. Branch Officer/Pension 30"From the aforesaid chart it appears that those who retiredprior to 1st June, 1988 or after 30th June, 1988 from similar post, they will get almost similar quantum of pension. It is not for us to calculate the emoluments or pension towhich one or other retired employee is entitled to under the law. If there is a wrong calculation, it is always open to such employeeto bring it to the notice of the competent authority or the Accountant General of the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In the present case, we are concerned with the questionwhether the cut-off date, 1st June, 1988, has any nexus or isarbitrary. This question, we have already answered, the StateGovernment having shown its nexus with the object to achieve. So far as the other issue is concerned, we have alreadynoticed the above submission made by learned Addl. Advocate Generaland discussed as to why 13% or 9% or 8% of the Dearness Allowancewas ordered to be taken into consideration for Dearness Pay forcomputation of emoluments and pension. It has already been noticedthat those who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 were getting lesserpay than those, who retired on or after 1st June, 1988. In thatbackground, if those retired in the revised scale of pay areprovided with the same percentage of Dearness Allowance as per G.O.Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998, it will createanomaly. In view of the aforesaid fact, while we are of the opinionthat grant of 'Dearness Pay' to all the retired employees in termswith G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998, willdiscriminate two sets of retired employees, i.e., those who retiredprior to 1st June, 1988 and those who retired after the said date, we hold that the aforesaid two Government Orders cannot beimplemented in respect to those, who retired from service on orafter 1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. We, accordingly, uphold the the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988, as prescribed in theimpugned order. The second question is, thus, answered against thewrit petitioners.
Learned single Judge having failed to notice the relevancyof the cut-off date and having failed to notice the relevant issuesas discussed above, the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rdFeb., 2006, passed in W.P. No. 26741/05 and the orders dated 20thApril, 2006, passed in W.P. Nos.32045 and 32089/06 (T) cannot beupheld. They are, accordingly, set aside. The writ petitionspreferred by the petitioners having no merit are fit to berejected. We, accordingly, dismiss all the writ petitions and allow allthe writ appeals. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. But, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.GLN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The SecretaryFinance (Pension) DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 009.2. The Accountant GeneralTeynampet, Chennai-63. Judicial MagistrateSankagiri, Salem District.4. The Deputy Secretary to Government of TamilnaduHome (Courts-5) DepartmentSecretariat, Chennai-9.5. Judicial Magistrate IISankari, Salem.6. The RegistrarHigh Court, Madras7. The Commissioner Gudiyatham MunicipalityGudiyatham, Vellore District.8. The CommissionerTirunelveli MunicipalityTirunelveli District.9. The ExaminerLocal Fund AccountsMadras.2 ccs to Mr.S.M. Sybramaniam, Sr. 745811 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 74618 W.A. NO. 1002 OF 2006 W.A. NOS. 9 & 75 OF 2007 W.P. NOS. 11062 & 11634/2002 W.P. NOS. 31753 & 33944 /2006 & 10946, 12197, 13514 & 15353 OF 2007KM (CO)kk 2/1
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 17 Dec 2007. The bench was S MUKHOPADHAYA, K SUGUNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.