IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman, JJ
Commissioner, Madurai Corporation – Appellant
Versus
A. Malarvizhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. administrative delay hindering appointment does not forfeit vested pension rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order passed in WP.(MD)No.24485 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Vinayak
For R1 : Mr.M.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Venkatesh
Counsel for State
For R4 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.24485 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.
2. Originally, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent herein dated 13.08.2025 and consequently, to direct the appellants to keep the first respondent/writ petitioner under the old pension scheme without disturbing the service of the writ petitioner.
3. It is the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that based upon the employment seniority registered with Employment Exchange, call letters were issued as early as in the year 1999 and she was included in the selection list that had been published on 29.10.1999. The Committee constituted also decided to go
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.