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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
J.Mani – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj
For the Respondents: Mr. C.Selvaraj, AGP for R1

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and petitioner's claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's hearing and material review (Para 4)
3. court's direction to consider representation (Para 5)

PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take into account 50 percent of the temporary service rendered by the petitioner from 03.02.1989 to 05.01.1998 (8 years, 11 months and 12 days) for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits in terms of G.O. Ms. No.408 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 and consequently grant the petitioner revised pensionary benefits together with arrears within a time frame.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj For Respondent(s): Mr. C.Selvaraj, AGP for R1

ORDER

The petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to take into account 50 percent of the temporary service rendered by the petitioner from 03.02.1989 to 05.01.1998 (8 years, 11 months and 12 days) for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.408 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 and consequently grant the petitioner revised pensionary benefits together with arrears within a time frame.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Sanitary Worker on 03.02.1989 on temporary basis and was regularized on 05.01.1998 and later, retired on attaining age of superannuation on 01.04.2023. While so, as per G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, he was entitled to have 50% of the said temporary service counted towards his qualifying service for pension. But, the respondents failed to calculate the said period.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made several representations dated 30.06.2025, 28.07.2025 and 15.09.2025 before the second respondent for which there is no response till date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the relief now sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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