SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, J.
R. Ananthanarayanan & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Food & Consumer Protection, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 33081, 33927, 34487, 36195 & 40571 of 2016 & WMP. Nos. 28563, 28564, 29287, 29288, 29731, 31137, 31138, 34574 & 34575 of 2016
Decided On : 01-09-2021

Appearing Advocates:
For the Petitioner:K. Harikrishanan, S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:K.V. Sajeev Kumar, Counsel for Government, S. Gunasekaran, Advocate, K. Tippusulthan, Counsel for Government.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Retired employees - Pension scheme - Implementation of pension scheme to retired employees - Seeks for a direction to Government for granting pension to them on par with pension scheme of employees of Tamil Nadu Government, in these Writ Petitions - In connection with this request, they have sought for quashing of G.O., Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department through which Government had implemented pension scheme for employees of Corporation, equivalent to Scheme, 1995 under Employees Provident Funds and Act, 1952 - Held, High Court had only ratified proposal for introduction of pension scheme on line with Scheme, 1995. In appeal filed against aforesaid order, Hon’ble Division Bench also limited the interference on the financial implication of State Government alone and did not interfere with findings of learned Single Judge. A co-joint reading of aforesaid two proceedings before this Court would reveal that High Court had ratified and permitted Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation to proceed with pension scheme, in lines of Scheme, 1995 - It is a well settled proposition that High Court, exercising its power under Article 226 of Constitution, will not normally interfere and give direction to State Government for exercise of such policy decisions, which is also impermissible in law - Writ Petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.136 dated 09.12.2014 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to implement the pension scheme to the retired employees of the second respondent.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.136 dated 09.12.2014 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to implement the pension scheme to the retired employees of the second respondent.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.136 dated 09.12.2014 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to pass G.O. to grant pension to the employees of the second respondent Corporation on par with the Tamil Nadu Government Employees as proposed in the resolution No.583 of the 220th Board meeting of the second respondent Board dated 05.11.1999.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.136 dated 09.12.2014 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to implement the pension scheme to the retired employees of the second respondent.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.136 dated 09.12.2014 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to implement the pension scheme to the petitioner retired employee of the second respondent.)

1. These Writ Petitions are heard through Video Conferencing on 05.07.2021.

2. The facts involved in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions are one and the same and therefore, all the cases are disposed of through a common order.

3. The retired employees of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) seeks for a direction to the Government for granting pension to them on par with the pension scheme of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Government, in these Writ Petitions. In connection with this request, they have sought for quashing of G.O.Ms.No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department, dated 09.12.2014, through which the Government had implemented the pension scheme for the employees of the Corporation, equivalent to Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

4. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the prayer cannot be maintained. Earlier when the employees union of the Corporation had sought for implementation of a pension scheme for their employees, this Court in its order dated 24.01.2011 passed in W.P.Nos.28269 & 34640 of 2007, etc., [Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation Employees Union, Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Rasipuram, Namakkal District V. V.Sivasubramanian & others] and etc., had permitted the Corporation to proceed with the scheme formulated by them. The order reads as follows:-

    “4. In such view of the matter, making it clear that under the Scheme propounded by the second respondent for the purpose of pension of its employees, the State Government shall not be financially implicated, the order of the first respondent is set aside, permitting the second respondent to proceed with the said Scheme created by the second respondent for its employees. It is made clear that the effect of the said Scheme formulated by the second respondent shall be with effect from 16.11.1995, as it is submitted by the learned counsel.”

5. The Government’s appeal before the Hon’b

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top