Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU, S.Srimathy
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department – Appellant
Versus
A. Malaichamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. service qualifications must align with statutory definitions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. part-time service cannot contribute to pension eligibility. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. precedents affirm part-time positions do not equate to full entitlement. (Para 8 , 11 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
The present writ appeal is filed by the State against the order, dated 20.03.2019, passed in W.P.(MD)No.15270 of 2017.
2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 09.06.2017 and consequently to direct the respondents to refix the pension by considering the petitioner's entire period of service from 10.06.1987 to 30.06.2012 based on various judgments and further, to direct the respondents to sanction full pensionary benefits.
3. The writ petitioner joined the duty on 10.06.1987 at Ponnari Village and worked as Grama Paniyalar. Thereafter, he worked at Kodimangalam Village, Kulapandi Firka till the date of retirement and retired on 30.06.2012 on attaining superannuation, thereby, he has put in service of 25 years and 20 days. The petitioner's service was regularized with effect from 01.06.1995 based on G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department
Part-time employment cannot be considered for pension calculation under applicable service rules, regardless of past incorrect orders granting such benefits to others.
The court ruled that prior part-time service of Village Assistants cannot be counted for pension calculations under the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, affirming the principle that erro....
The court ruled that past service of Village Assistants can be counted for pension calculation, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits without relying on previous illegal orde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules in the context of part-time employment and the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the phrase 'job involving whole time employment' in Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules should be interpreted broadly to include part-t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules are to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50% of the services rendered by the em....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
