Follow:
- Next story Chennai: The Madras high court has held that those government servants /employees, who are freshly appointed on or after April 1, 2003, are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O dated August 6, 2003. The Full Bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah, P.T.Asha and C.Saravanan gave the ruling while answering the reference made to it on a batch of petitions and appeals from individual employees and state government. The Full bench said such reference came to be made by the division bench on noticing that there were two conflicting decisions rendered by the division benches of this court. In one of the judgments, it was held that persons who were absorbed and/or regularized to service after April 1, 2003 were not entitled to count half of the past service rendered by them for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits along with the service rendered by them after regularization. Another division bench held that such persons, whose service came to be regularized after April 1, 2003 were entitled and/or eligible to count half of the services rendered by them on daily wage basis prior to their regularization, for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. Thus, this contrary view taken by two division bench of this court has led to the present reference to this Full bench, the Full bench added. The Full Bench held that those government servants/employees appointed prior to April 1, 2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularized before April 1, 2003, half of service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits, the Full Bench added. The Full Bench said those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and absorbed into regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension. Those government servants, who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before April 1, 2003 but were absorbed in regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension, the Full Bench added.
- Previous story *SC Quashes All Criminal Cases Against Salman Khan In Connection With Movie ‘Loveratri’ [Read Order]* https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/loveratri-sc-quashes-cases-against-salman-khan-150394
Recent Posts
- It is the grievance of the petitioners that though a detailed enquiry was commenced on 01.09.2021, there is no progress, till the present officer took charge on 26.06.2023 and thereby, there has been a delay. Now, an undertaking is giving by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the enquiry would be completed within a period of six months. 13. Recording the undertaking given by the learned State Public Prosecutor, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. The petitioner in W.P.No.31394 of 2023 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for enquiry on 06.12.2023. No costs. 28.11.2023 Note: Issue order copy today ( 28.11.2023) Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No ham To 1. The Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Special Investigation Cell-II, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai – 600 016. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ham W.P.Nos.31394 & 33198 of 2023 28.11.2023
- [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: செங்கல்வராயன் அறக்கட்டளைக்கு முன்னாள் நீதிபதி கலையரசன் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார் இதற்கான அரசாணை தமிழக அரசு பிறப்பித்துள்ளது [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: 👍
- Vinothpandian: 1998 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 484 : koko vs hassan bano : A binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exercise of legislative power [11/29, 13:06] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 644 : sunita vs Rajasthan state transport
- Therefore this Court is directing the parties to act as per the orders that would be passed in SLP(C)No.19553 of 2023 batch and W.P.(C)No.985 of 2023 and until then the respondents are restrained from conducting any training as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.285, Tourism, Culture and Charitable Department, dated 27.07.2023 and the subsequent proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.25339/2023 W.2, dated 28.08.2023. 28. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No Costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Tmg To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 3.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.P.(MD).No.22347 of 2023 28.11.2023
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729753687566770617?t=OZbp3_S6CzKA7GRh-mTIMw&s=08 Eventhough, it is argued that the Deputy Commissioner (Health) of Chennai Corporation is not an appropriate officer to consider and pass order on the petitioner’s representation, the order reads that it has been passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and hence, the contention that order has not been passed by the Commissioner of Corporation is liable to be rejected. 15. As discussed supra, the Corporation has also taken possession of the land and constructed the Park and Children Play Area, the Trust is not entitled to claim any relief in the Writ Petition more particularly, seeking the relief for getting planning permission. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 09.11.2023 ssi Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
More
Recent Posts
- It is the grievance of the petitioners that though a detailed enquiry was commenced on 01.09.2021, there is no progress, till the present officer took charge on 26.06.2023 and thereby, there has been a delay. Now, an undertaking is giving by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the enquiry would be completed within a period of six months. 13. Recording the undertaking given by the learned State Public Prosecutor, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. The petitioner in W.P.No.31394 of 2023 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for enquiry on 06.12.2023. No costs. 28.11.2023 Note: Issue order copy today ( 28.11.2023) Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No ham To 1. The Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Special Investigation Cell-II, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai – 600 016. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ham W.P.Nos.31394 & 33198 of 2023 28.11.2023
- [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: செங்கல்வராயன் அறக்கட்டளைக்கு முன்னாள் நீதிபதி கலையரசன் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார் இதற்கான அரசாணை தமிழக அரசு பிறப்பித்துள்ளது [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: 👍
- Vinothpandian: 1998 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 484 : koko vs hassan bano : A binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exercise of legislative power [11/29, 13:06] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 644 : sunita vs Rajasthan state transport
- Therefore this Court is directing the parties to act as per the orders that would be passed in SLP(C)No.19553 of 2023 batch and W.P.(C)No.985 of 2023 and until then the respondents are restrained from conducting any training as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.285, Tourism, Culture and Charitable Department, dated 27.07.2023 and the subsequent proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.25339/2023 W.2, dated 28.08.2023. 28. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No Costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Tmg To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 3.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.P.(MD).No.22347 of 2023 28.11.2023
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729753687566770617?t=OZbp3_S6CzKA7GRh-mTIMw&s=08 Eventhough, it is argued that the Deputy Commissioner (Health) of Chennai Corporation is not an appropriate officer to consider and pass order on the petitioner’s representation, the order reads that it has been passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and hence, the contention that order has not been passed by the Commissioner of Corporation is liable to be rejected. 15. As discussed supra, the Corporation has also taken possession of the land and constructed the Park and Children Play Area, the Trust is not entitled to claim any relief in the Writ Petition more particularly, seeking the relief for getting planning permission. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 09.11.2023 ssi Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No