Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan, JJ
Government of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
S.Rajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the common order passed by the Writ Court dated 01.03.2024 made in W.P.Nos.29880 and 19882 of 2022.
2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [for brevity, herein after referred to as "the TNPSC"] has issued a notification for Direct Recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Grade II) for the year 1998-2002. Both the writ petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. Totally fifty three candidates were selected to the said post and the writ petitioners were placed in the reserved list. Thereafter, though three selected candidates failed to join and since vacancies arose, immediately, the reserve list has not been operated by giving appointment to the writ petitioners.
3. Therefore, the writ petitioners and another approached the Writ Court by filing W.P.Nos.6085, 9823 and 11234 of 2004. The Writ Court, by orders dated 27.04.2006 and 21.06.2006, allowed those writ petitions by giving directions to the Department to appoint the writ petitioners in the resultant vacancies. However, the said judgment of the Writ Court was challe
Accrued legal rights to pension benefits cannot be denied due to administrative delays in appointment.
The delay in appointments, not attributable to the appellants, should not deprive them of their entitlement to claim membership in the Pension Scheme, 1978.
Employment recruitment delays not attributable to candidates can exempt them from new pension rules, allowing adherence to older pension systems.
Delay which had occurred during the selection process as well as the delay in issuing the appointment orders cannot be attributed to the petitioners in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from....
Candidates selected for government service prior to the implementation of a new pension scheme are entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme if the delay in their appointment is attributable....
The court held that petitioners should be notionally appointed from 15th January 2003 for Old Pension Scheme benefits due to administrative delays in their appointment.
The court ruled that the delay in appointment does not justify denying the Old Pension Scheme benefits to petitioners, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
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
