Madras High Court Directs Department To Consider Man Eligible for Pensionary Benefits After His Death

Must Read

SC: No Reservation for in-Service Doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the Academic Year 2020-21

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that there will be no reservation for the in-service doctors for...

Madras HC Allows Teacher’s Petition for Incentive Increment on the Basis of Acquired Higher Degree

A teacher in a minority-run educational institute was denied a set of incentive increment owing to her acquiring a...

SC: HC Not to Re-Examine Adequate and Fair Disciplinary Actions Under Art. 226 on Appeal

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 cannot act as an...

SC: Transfer of Cases Under S.406 of CrPC to be Invoked Only in Exceptional Cases

A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that the transfer of trial from one state to another reflects...

Jharkhand HC Disposes of Writ Petition Filed to Fill up Vacant Seats Reserved for Govt. School Teachers

A writ petition was filed to fill up the vacant seats which were kept reserved for Govt. School Teachers...

Bombay HC Pursues Case Regarding the Nomination of Sole Arbitrator to Settle Partnership Dispute

The High Court heard the matter where disputes had arisen between the parties from their partnership deed. The Court...

Follow us

The petition was filed under Article 226 in the Madras High Court. The prayer was for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to pay retirement benefits along with arrears of the petitioner’s husband from 28-02-1994. Justice Mr P. Velmurgan heard and allowed the matter petition in the case of Mohanvalli v. The State of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to Government and Ors.  

Facts of the case

The Petitioner’s husband died on 1st April 2004. The Petitioner’s husband had been appointed to the post of Rural Medical Practitioner and started working on 2nd January 1973 and later on 1st October 1984, the service was regularized, and he worked there till attainment of superannuation on 20th February 1994.

The Petitioner claimed that her husband’s service from 2nd January 1973 should be considered for pensionary benefits along with the regularized service. The claim was based on orders of multiple similar cases in the court along with the Government Order G.O. Ms No. 118, dated 14th February 1996.

The petitioner also claimed that she has made several representations dated 7th June 1999 and 21st October 2005 seeking payment in respect of her husband retirement benefits, there has been no action taken on that also.

 

Arguments of the Parties

The Respondent contended that while her husband was employed on a part-time basis along with fixed pay and under non-pensionable establishment, he died on 1st April 2004 without any service benefits. But on 24th September 2007 through G.O.Ms.No.164/RD & LA (E5) Department it was established that practitioners in rural dispensaries and those who fall under sanctioned time scale of pay w.e.f. 01.10.1984 are considered for pensionary benefits. This made the Petitioner’s husband eligible for benefits from 1st October 1984 up to the date of superannuation.

The Respondents also clarified that multiple reminders were sent to the Petitioner for the application of the pension forms through the correct channel which was finally complied on 20th September 2010. Since then the respondents allowed the petitioner to draw regular family pension and arrears were paid in a lump sum after which the Petitioner filed this writ petition.   

As per Rule 11(4)(i) of TNPR, 1978 only whole-time employment is eligible for pensionary benefits which makes the Petitioner’s husband’s service from 2nd January 1973 to 30th September 1984 non-pensionable. 

Observation of the Court

Court ordered that the Respondents take the service of the petitioner’s husband regularized since 2nd January 1973 as on taking account of multiple ratios passed by the court in similar cases.

Along with that since the payment for the service Gratuity and the death cum retirement benefit was delayed, Court ordered respondents to consider the interests on delayed payment since Petitioner’s husband fulfilled the criteria under clauses (i) and (ii) of the G. O. Ms. No. 118 of Tamil Nadu Finance (Pension) Department.

Decision of the Court

The Court allowed the petition and successfully disposed of it by giving suitable directions to the Respondents.

Click here to view the original judgement 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC: No Reservation for in-Service Doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the Academic Year 2020-21

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that there will be no reservation for the in-service doctors for admission into Super Specialty Medical...

Madras HC Allows Teacher’s Petition for Incentive Increment on the Basis of Acquired Higher Degree

A teacher in a minority-run educational institute was denied a set of incentive increment owing to her acquiring a higher degree. The aided private...

SC: HC Not to Re-Examine Adequate and Fair Disciplinary Actions Under Art. 226 on Appeal

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 cannot act as an appellate authority and re-examine the...

SC: Transfer of Cases Under S.406 of CrPC to be Invoked Only in Exceptional Cases

A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that the transfer of trial from one state to another reflects on the credibility of the...

Jharkhand HC Disposes of Writ Petition Filed to Fill up Vacant Seats Reserved for Govt. School Teachers

A writ petition was filed to fill up the vacant seats which were kept reserved for Govt. School Teachers in terms of Rule 9(i)...

Bombay HC Pursues Case Regarding the Nomination of Sole Arbitrator to Settle Partnership Dispute

The High Court heard the matter where disputes had arisen between the parties from their partnership deed. The Court directed that, in light of...

Madras HC Directs Agriculturist to Pay Insurance Premium Amount Payable Under the PMFBY Scheme

The Madras High Court on 27 November 2020, directed the petitioner to pay the insurance premium amount payable under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima...

Karnataka HC Releases Accused that Promised Marriage and Obtained Consent for Coitus

The Karnataka High Court granted bail on several conditions to the accused who had promised to marry the victim and obtained her consent for...

Supreme Court Holds in Favour of Narendra Modi in Election Petition Filed by Ex-BSF Jawan

This Appeal to the Supreme Court was filed to decide whether the Appellant had the locus standi to file an election petition before the...

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -