D.Rajendran v. The State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI 1.D.Rajendran 2.M.Rajendran 3.P.Arasu 4.V.Mohan 5.K.Sankari 6.S.Thulasi Bai 7.T.Suseela 8.M.Adhilakshmi 9.S.Jaya 10.P.Saraswathi 11.M.Mangammal 12.M.Bhagyam 13.Velumani 14.A.Mahendran 15.A.Rajendran 16.J.Babu 17.N.Murugesan 18.S.Jegatha 19.P.Pachaiyappan 20.L.Pandiya Mannan 21.R.Muthukrishnan 22.R.Raju ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09.

1/4

2.The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai 06.

3.The Dean, Government General Hospital, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to count the temporary services of the petitioners from their respective initial date of appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.

For Petitioners : Ms.Swathi Subramanian for M/s.Prem Narayan For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to count the temporary services of the petitioners from their respective initial date of appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were initially 2/4

appointed as Substitute Workers through District Employment Exchange during the year 1988. Thereafter, their services were regularized. The petitioners came to understand that their qualifying services were considered only from the date of their regular appointment and their earlier temporary services were not taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Hence, the petitioners made representation to the respondents and since there was no response, came forward to file this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 10.06.2013, within a reasonable time frame.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader has no serious objection for this Court issuing such a direction. 5.In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 10.06.2013, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/4

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri 6.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 30.09.2020 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09.

2.The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai 06.

3.The Dean, Government General Hospital, Chennai.

30.09.2020 4/4