Cuddalore District Retired v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 31.01.2020 DELIVERED ON : 15.05.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.Nos.4874, 7590, 7622, 15371, 15372, 15597, 15598, 18609, 18620, 18901, 18966, 19667, 20191, 22322, 22471, 23695, 23751, 24856, 24908, 25029, 25702, 25800, 26070, 26241, 26409, 27237, 27998, 29350, 30937, 30938, 30939, 30940, 30941, 30942, 33025, 33065, 33727, 35190, 35191, 35192, 35193, 35194, 35195 of 2014, 3782, 5779, 7115, 12868, 12955, 14312, 30774 and 3864 of 2015 CUDDALORE DISTRICT RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION. REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT V.RAJENDRAN, NORTHERN BARRACKS BEHIND THE COLLECTORATE, SUB JAIL ROAD, CUDDALORE 607 001.

... Petitioner in WP No.4874 of 2014

1. P.VEERASAMY

2. P.M.KAVERIAPPAN

3. S.DURAIPANDIAN

4. R.VALLIYAMMAL ... Petitioner in WP No.7590 of 2014 RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION REG NO.126/99 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE GENERAL SECRETARY, MUTHUKALATHY STREET, TRIPLICANE CHENNAI - 600 005.

... Petitioner in WP No.7622 of 2014 1.V.MUTHUVAIRAVAN 2.M.SAMBAMOORTHY 3.T.P.ARUMUGAM 4.K.RAJAGOPALAN 5.S.SUBRAMANIAN 6.M.BALAKRISHNAN 7.K.N.GANESAN 8.M.SWAMINATHAN 9.AL.JEGADEESAN 10.S.SHAHUL HAMEED 11.S.NARAYANASAMY 12.G.JAYARAMAN 13.V.VENUGOPALAN 14.A.KRISHNASAMY

15.G.VISWANATHAN 16.R.GOVINDARAJAN 17.S.SUNDARESAN 18.V.THIYAGARAJAN 19.S.PATTAMMAL 20.M.GNANAM 21.T.N.GURUNATHAN 22.J.SELVARAJ 23.R.SRINIVASAN 24.S.MURUGASIGAMANI

25. M.RAMAMURTHI

26. R.KANNAN

27. S.SARANATHAN

28. A.VENKATAKRISHNAN

29. M.T.GOPALARATHINAM

30. S.SWAMINATHAN

31. S.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

32. S.KANNAN

33. G.SUBBIAH

34. P.UMAYADEVI

35. A.R.THYAGARAJAN

36. D.P.P.VARADARAJULU

37. J.NATARAJAN

38. S.VASUDEVAN

39. D.ALEXANDER

40. S.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN

41. R.DEENADAYALU

42. N.NARAYANAN

43. S.KRISHNAMURTHY

44. K.M.SANKARASUBRAMANIAN

45. A.MOHAMED ISMAIL KHAN

46. R.THIRUVENKATATHAN

47. N.RAMAMURTHY

48. J.DEVARAJ

49. R.SRINIVASARAGHAVAN

50. G.VENKATARAMAN

51. R.RAMASWAMY

52. D.RAMASWAMY

53. A.V.RANGANATHAN

54. A.ARUMUGAM

55. N.MURUGESAN ... Petitioner in WP No.15371 of 2014 G.PONNAMBALAM ... Petitioner in WP No.15372 of 2014 N.SHANMUGA SUNDARAM ... Petitioner in WP No.15597 of 2014 P.DEIVASIGAMANAI ... Petitioner in WP No.15598 of 2014

1. R.DAKSHINAMOORTHY

2. G.SHANMUGAM

3. K.DHANUSHKOTI

4. P.JAYARAMAN

5. D.CHELLASAMY

6. N.SIVALINGAM

7. K.KRISHNAN ... Petitioner in WP No.18609 of 2014 CUDDALORE DISTRICT RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, V.RAJENDRAN, NORTHERN BARRACKS BEHIND THE COLLECTORATE, SUB JAIL ROAD, CUDDALORE 607 001. ... Petitioner in WP No.18620 of 2014

1. S. RAJAMANICKAM

2. K. RAMAMOORTHY

3. P. RAMADOSS

4. D.SESHADRI

5. V.KANAGASABAPATHY

6. P.MUTHU

7. K. APPA SAMY

8. V.NARAYANASAMY

9. D. PARAMAIYAN

10. V.GANESAN

11. P. JAYARAMAN

12. A. KANAGASUNDARAM

13. K. SARASWATHI

14. S.LALITHA

15. A. ROMANAMMAL

16. T.V.NATARAJAN

17. R.S.DORAISAMY

18. S.V.KANNAPIRAN

19. M.RAMACHANDRAN

20. M.ANJAMMAL

21. P.SANTHANAM

22. N.S.SANTHANAM

23. M. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM

24. V.R. GANESAN

25. G.KULASEKARAN

26. S.JAGANNATHAN

27. S.NAMASIVAYAM

28. I.RAMADOSS

29. M.G.SINGARAVEL

30. S.NAGARAJAN

31. P.BALAKRISHNAN

32. M.MUTHUSAMY

33. S.SAROJA ... Petitioner in WP No.18901 of 2014

V.RAJENDRAN ... Petitioner in WP No.18966 of 2014 CHENGALPATTU RETIRED OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION CHENGALPATTU HAVING REGISTRATION NO.204/2010 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY A.NAGAPPAN ... Petitioner in WP No.19667 of 2014 GINGEE TALUK RETIRED OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION, GINGEE, REG.NO.47/2001 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, R.KALAIMANI ... Petitioner in WP No.20191 of 2014

1. S.SUBRAMANIAN

2. S.S.MANI

3. I.KUPPUSAMY

4. D.MUTHUMANICKAM

5. P.GOVINDAN

6. D.SUSEELA

7. S.SUBRAMANIAN

8. S.SITALAKSHMI

9. S.RAGHUNATHAN 10.V.SANKARANARAYANAN

11. M.SARAVANAN

12. K.VAIDYANATHASAMY ... Petitioners in WP No.22322 of 2014 1 D.RAMAIAH 2 S.KALIAPERUMAL 3 G.PAKKIRISAMY 4 R.SWAMINATHAN 5 K.GANESAN 6 V.KANTHIYAN 7 P.PALANIVELAN 8 T.T.SRINIVASAN 9 K.THANGARAJAN 10 S.RAMALINGAM 11 M.NATARAJAN 12 R.THANGARAJAN 13 V.CHANDRAHASAN 14 P.KASINATHAN 15 R.BAKTHAVATCHALAM 16 M.RAMALINGAM 17 R.KUMARASAMY 18 E.MATHANGARAJU 19 G.DORAI RAJ

20 J.SESHAGIRI RAO 21 K.A.SHANMUGANANTHAM 22 V.MADHANMOHAN 23 R.GOVINDARAJULU 24 T.T.MANI 25 V.MYLVAHANAN 26 N.VEERACHAMY 27 M.LOURDUNATHAN 28 R.ALALASUNDARAM 29 S.SAMBAMURTHY 30 TMT.S.VANAJA 31 L.JAMES 32 P.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM 33 S.MALATHI ... Petitioners in WP No.22471 of 2014 1 V.BASKARAN 2 P.KARUPPIAH 3 V.M.KARUPPIAH 4 V.NAGARATHINAM 5 V.THANGARAJ 6 S.LALITHAMBAL 7 P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 8 R.S.JAYARAMAN 9 A.GANDHI 10 T.J.KUNJITHAPATHAM 11 S.RAMADOSS 12 D.MENAKA 13 S.SARASVATHY 14 R.SAROJINI 15 P.JAYARAMAN 16 G.MANITHAI 17 V.RAJAPPAN 18 N.INDRANI 19 R.O.KANDASAMY 20 G.GABRIEL 21 S.MUTHU KAMALU 22 M.KRISHNAMOORTHY 23 S.RAMAKKAL 24 S.G.SUBBIAH 25 G.RAMAKRISHNAN 26 P.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN 27 S.P.SUBBIAH 28 S.P.SUBBIAH 29 S.SOMASKANDAN 30 M. SUBRAMANIAN 31 V.PACKIAM 32 C.MURUGAN 33 B.RAJARATHINAM

34 P.SANNASI 35 N.NAGAYASWAMY 36 M.RAJU 37 G.HARI RAGAVAN 38 B.KANNAYAN 39 R.K.MUTHULAKSHMI 40 T.SURULIAPPAN 41 A.GEORGE 42 K.MARIMUTHU 43 S.RANGANATHAN 44 D.BARNABAS RAJIAH 45 N.CHITHAMALLU 46 S.MANI 47 P.VALLIKKANNU 48 V.PANDIAN 49 S.DURAIRAJ 50 T.N.SUBRAMANIAN 51 S.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 52 N.BALASUBRAMANIAN 53 G.JOSEPH MINOR 54 T.SOUNDARARAJAN 55 S.A. ISSAC 56 T.P.NAGARAJAN 57 P.SANKARAN 58 E.SETHURAMALINGAM 59 R.VELAYUTHUPERUMAL 60 A.JEYASINGH 61 G.KALAIYAPERUMAL 62 S.K.UDUMAN MOHIDEEN 63 T.R.RADHAKRISHNAN 64 M.SUNDARARAJAN 65 M.K.ILANGUMANI 66 V.RAMAKRISHNAN 67 U.KABILAN 68 A.VELU 69 K.J.RAMASAMY 70 K.KAMARAJ 71 P.KARUMALAI 72 V.CHIDAMBARAM 73 N.MUTHUSAMY 74 P.RAJU 75 G.KRISHNAN 76 K.JAYARAMAN 77 S.CHINNASAMY 78 D.MEENAKSHI 79 P.THANGAVEL 80 S.RAMADOSS 81 K.RUSTHAN BAIG

82 C.KANNAN 83 C.THAMBIRAJAN 84 D.MASILAMANI 85 P.KRISHNASAMY 86 K.KRISHNAMURTHY 87 R.MURUGESAN 88 THIRU.A.SELLAPERUMAL 89 THIRU.G.ARULANANTHAM 90 TMT.S.SAROJINI 91 THIRU.A.AROKIASAMY ... Petitioners in WP No.23695 of 2014 1 K.RANGANATHAN 2 M.G.JOHN RAJ 3 T.SERVAIKARAN 4 D.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 5 A.MAYILVAHANAN 6 N.RAJAPPA 7 M.VEERAMUTHU 8 P.VRIDHAMBAL 9 D.PITCHAI 10 V.RANGARAJAN 11 D.RAMAMOORTHY 12 S.KALIYAPERUMAL 13 R.ALAGAPPAN 14 N.KARUPPAIYAN 15 R.SOMASUNDARAM 16 A.VELAYUTHAM 17 V.SAMUEL 18 A.SRINIVASAN 19 K.BALAN NAIR 20 S.RAJALAKSHMI 21 N.MARUTHAMUTHU 22 K.RAMASWAMI 23 V.RAJU 24 T.K.SRINIVASAN 25 K.RAMALINGAM 26 K.RENGARAJAN 27 N.RENGARAJU 28 P.G.PICHAI 29 M.UNNAMALAI 30 M.KUMARA CHELLIAH 31 R.V.MUTHIAH 32 K.MASSILAMONY 33 P.ANANDASANKARA SUBRAMANIAN 34 T.N.KRISHNASAMY 35 A.S.VENKATRAGHAVAN 36 VIJAVALLI RAGHAVAN 37 N.SIVASUBRAMANIAN

38 U.MANICKAM 39 V.VEERANATHEVAN 40 S.SANKARAPPAN 41 R.GOPALSAMY 42 S.MADHAVAN 43 N.DORAIRAJAN 44 A.SUBRAMANIYAN 45 R.THIAGARAJAN 46 A.CHOKKALINGAM 47 K.VENKATARAMANI 48 P.MUTHUSAMY 49 A.PALVANNAM 50 N.SAKTHIVEL 51 A.ATHINARAYANAN 52 R.GURUSAMY 53 MARIA PUSHPAM 54 P.SAHADEVAN 55 R.KRISHNAN 56 T.V.SUBBIAH 57 S.RAJU 58 C.ARUNACHALAM 59 K.JANAKY 60 M.PONNUCHAMY 61 A.ALWARSAMY 62 P.GOVINDAN 63 S.BALARAMAN 64 V.BALAKRISHNAN 65 AHAMED BAIG 66 C.VEERAN POOSARI 67 A.S.ADHIRAJ 68 G.THIYAGARAJAN 69 G.RATHINAVELU 70 K.KANNAN 71 N.SANTHANAM 72 S.KANNAN 73 R.HARIKARAN 74 T.V.SEENUVASAN 75 R.THIRUNARAYANAN 76 L.GANDHI 77 R.JEEVARATHINAM 78 K.SEENUVASAN 79 N.SINGARAVELU 80 C.GANESAN 81 C.VELUSAMY 82 S.NAGARAJAN 83 K.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 84 M.ARUMUGAM 85 A.NARAYANAN

86 D.ARUMUGAM 87 M.DHARMALINGAM 88 M.RAGOTHAMAN 89 N.BALAKRISHNAN 90 D.BALARAMAN ... Petitioners in WP No.23751 of 2014 1 A.RATHINASABAPATHY 2 S.DURAIPANDIAN 3 G.RAJALAKSHMI 4 A.PALANIANDI 5 T.NAGARAJAN 6 T.SHANMUGAM 7 D.DEVADOSS 8 ADAIKALA MARY 9 D.RADHAKRISHNAN 10 R.SETHURAMAN 11 R.DAMODARAN 12 V.N.VENKATACHALAM 13 V.N.CHANDRASEKARAN 14 D.KALIAPPAN 15 K.PERIASAMY 16 N.RENGASWAMY 17 S.MARIA ANTONRY 18 R.MUTHAIYAN 19 R.NARAYANAN 20 P.MARUTHAI 21 G.K.NATARAJAN 22 PERIAKANNAN 23 V.RAJAMANI 24 P.SUBRAMANIAM 25 A.CHIDAMBARAM 26 K.AMASI 27 A.CHANDRAN 28 P.KASILINGAM 29 N.RAMALINGAM 30 R.RAMASAMY 31 R.PERUMAL 32 S.GOPAL 33 C.SHANMUGASUNDARA RAJ 34 S.EDALINGAM 35 N.SOMASUNDARAM 36 G.GANESAN 37 T.P.SELVARAJ 38 C.SUNDARAM 39 T.R.VENKATALAKSHMANAN 40 S.ELUMALAI 41 S.BALASUBRAMANIAM 42 E.CHINNAKUPPAN

43 G.KRISHNAN 44 V.P.MUTHAPPAN 45 V.VENKATASUBBAN 46 P.MANICKAM 47 A.MAYAN 48 G.SUBRAMANIAN 49 A.SUBRAMANIAN 50 V.PARTHASARATHI 51 P.PONNUVELU 52 G.VENKADHACHALAM 53 C.M.K.SUBRAMANIAM 54 A.JAGANATHAN 55 P.M.SARANGARAJAN 56 S.SABAPATHY 57 T.SUNDARARAJAN 58 D.PACKKRISWAMY 59 S.KOTHANDARAMAN 60 S.CHELLAMANICKAM 61 M.RAMALINGAM 62 S.SAVARIMUTHU 63 M.KARUPPIAH 64 K.NARASIMHALU 65 C.KUPPUSAMY 66 A.KALIAMMAL 67 K.NANDAGOPAL 68 K.RAMASAMY 69 V.SRINIVASAN 70 T.M.MOHAMED HANIFA 71 K.MADANAGOPALAN 72 G.KANNAPIRAN 73 P.MURUGESAN 74 S.RARANGAPANI 75 A.MURUGESAN 76 J.P.LOURDUSAMY 77 D.SANTHANAM 78 A.JABAMANI 79 D.SANTHANAKRISHNAN 80 R.P.SATHIAMOORTHY 81 N.MUTHUKUMARASWAMY 82 K.RAJASUNDARAM 83 D.JAYARAMAN 84 B.PITCHAI 85 P.SUSAI 86 S.VILVAVANAM 87 S.VENKATESAN 88 N.MANOHARAN 89 K.AVUDAINAYAGAM 90 S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN ... Petitioners in WP No.24856 of 2014

P.GOVINDARAJULU ... Petitioner in WP No.24908 of 2014 1 S.KANDASWAMY 2 D.ANANDRAJ 3 A.K.NARAYANAN 4 V.R.DEENADAYALAN 5 G.GALAJI 6 A.KARUNAKARAN 7 D.GOVINDARAJALU 8 G.MAHABOOB BASHA 9 A.R.GURUNATHAN 10 A.VETHAMONY 11 S.SETHU RAMALINGAM 12 A.RAMASWAMY 13 P.P.GOVINDAN ADIYODI 14 S.P.S.GANESAN 15 K.V.R.S.MANI 16 M.PALANISAMY 17 A.RAJASEKARAN 18 T.A.GNANAMBAL ABRAHAM 19 A.SELVARAJ 20 K.SADAYAPPAN 21 S.PALANISAMY 22 T.ARUMUGAM 23 S.RAMAKRISHNAN 24 R.JAYARAMAN 25 SU.VAI MARUTHAVANAN 26 S.PARASURAMAN 27 T.MURUGESAN 28 A.RAJALINGAM 29 N.RENGARAJAN 30 K.VENKATACHALAM 31 T.N.SIVASHANMUGAM 32 S.ANANTHA SUBRAMANIAN 33 A.ANTHONY GEORGE 34 R.SIVAPRAKASAM 35 V.S.PASUPATHY 36 B.MATHAMBIGAI 37 S.SAVARIMUTHU 38 A.ILLAHI BAKSH 39 M.SAVARIAPPAN 40 D.GNANAMANI 41 K.NATESAN 42 D.NARAYANASAMY 43 B.MOHAMMED GANI 44 A.THANGAVELU 45 D.ADIMOOLAM

46 K.N.RAJAGOPAL 47 J.SIVARAJ 48 R.KRISHNAN 49 A.SUBRAMANIAN 50 S.MOOKKAN 51 M.MICHAEL FRENCH 52 N.NELLAIYAPPAN 53 T.S.VISWANATHAN 54 K.APPANDAI 55 M.MUTHUPERIYANAYAGAM 56 A.S.SHOWKATH SALAMULLAH 57 T.THIRUGNANASAMBANDA MOORTHY 58 K.MAHALINGAM 59 S.M.DAWLATH NEZZ 60 N.GOVINDASAMY 61 D.RENGARAMANUJAM 62 N.RAMALINGAM 63 J.SUBRAMANIA IYER 64 P.CHELLADURAI 65 R.BAKTHAVACHALAM 66 G.RAJAGOPALAN 67 S.HARIHARASUBRAMANIAN 68 A.M.RAGURAMAN 69 K.THANGAVELU 70 M.ANGAPPAN 71 V.CHANDRASEKARAN 72 A.APPANDAINATHAN 73 G.N.RAMACHANDRAN 74 T.V.SRIRANGAM 75 V.KRISHNARAMANUJAM 76 P.MANTHAIYAR 77 V.LAKSHMI KUTTY 78 S.CHOCKALINGAM 79 S.MUNIYANDI 80 V.PAULRAJAN 81 R.AYYATHURAI 82 M.BALAKRISHNAN 83 S.SHANMUGA NATHAN 84 P.DHALAVOI 85 N.CHINNASAMY 86 S.RUKMANI 87 K.S.RAMASAMY 88 G.PADMARAJ 89 K.PERIASOLAI 90 S.MARIADOSS ... Petitioners in WP No.25029 of 2014 1 S.ANBARASAN 2 K.SIDDAN

3 N.RAJAN 4 N.TUFAIL AHMED 5 K.NATESAN 6 G.THIRAVIAM 7 A.PALANIAPPAN 8 C.MANICKAM 9 A.S.SENGOTTUVELU 10 P.SRINIVASAN 11 M.VARADARAJULU 12 K.ABDUL ALI 13 S.GOVINDAN 14 T.N.THIYAGARAJAN 15 C.RAJAMANICKAM ... Petitioners in WP No.25702 of 2014 1 S.SIVAPRAKASAM 2 P.S.PARASURAMAN 3 V.M.MUTHUVEERAPPAN 4 S.KUPPUSAMY 5 P.PANDURANGAN 6 A.THANGARAJU 7 S.GOVINDARAJ 8 M.NATARAJAN 9 S.KUMARASAMY 10 T.P.NATARAJAN 11 A.HIMAYATHULLAH 12 M.SUBRAMANIAN ... Petitioners in WP No.25800 of 2014 1 N.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 2 V.RAJAGOPAL 3 A.SHANMUGAM 4 R.AMIRTHALINGAM 5 M.VENKATACHALAM 6 K.SAKUL HAMEED 7 R.KUPPUSAMY 8 E.SIVAGURUNATHAN 9 M.DAKSHINAMURTHY 10 N.CHANDRASEKARAN 11 P.VAIRAN 12 R.VEDARETHINAM 13 V.SARAVANAN 14 S.SIVANESAN 15 C.KALYANASUNDARAM 16 V.PACKIRISAMY 17 P.KANDASAMY 18 R.JAYARAMAN 19 N.MUTHUKUMARASAMY 20 K.THIAGARAJAN 21 M.AYYASAMY

22 V.SHANMUGAM 23 P.ARUMUGAM 24 R.VEERAIYAN 25 S.PALANIVELU 26 V.P.SHANMUGAM 27 R.MARIYAKKANNU 28 M.MOHAMBAL 29 R.NARAYANAN 30 S.ABATHARANAM 31 I.ARULANANDAM 32 H.SYED HAMEED 33 N.PALAIYAN 34 S.THAMBIRAJU 35 S.SUNDARAM 36 R.MUTHUMANICKAM 37 J.MUTHAIYAN 38 P.VENKATACHALAM 39 N.KANDAPPAN 40 S.RAJAPPAN 41 M.SOMANATHAN 42 A.THAYUMANAVAN 43 R.JAYARAMAN 44 N.SWAMIYYAH 45 M.NATARAJAN 46 S.PALANIVELU 47 N.VEERAPPAN 48 N.DURAIKANNAN 49 N.VENKATARAMANI 50 N.RUKMANI 51 S.NAGARAJAN 52 S.BALASUBRAMANIYAN 53 P.S.RAMAMOORTHY 54 V.SANTHANAKRISHNAN 55 K.RAMAIAH 56 V.YAGNARAMAN 57 S.R.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 58 P.SUBRAMANIAN 59 A.PACKIRI MOHAMED 60 S.KULANDAITHERESA 61 R.RAJARETHINAM 62 N.CHINNAIYAN 63 V.PARANJOTHI 64 M.DHARUMAIYAN 65 V.RAMAKRISHNAN 66 N.KALAYANASUNDARAM 67 M.MANICKAM 68 K.VEERAIYAN 69 R.SINGARAVELU

70 K.VENKATESAN 71 R.POOMALAI 72 C.MUTHUVELU 73 K.G.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 74 A.KRISHNAN 75 R.SOMASUNDARAM 76 T.PARAMASIVAM 77 R.SOUNDARARAJAN 78 S.RAMAN 79 R.SOUNDARARAJAN ... Petitioners in WP No.26070 of 2014 K.NEELAMEGAM ... Petitioner in WP No.26241 of 2014 1 T.P.BALASUNDARAM 2 M.ABIRAMA SUNDARI 3 T.C.VIJAYALAKSHMI 4 N.SANKARAGOMATHY 5 D.SAROJA ANBUMANI ... Petitioners in WP No.26409 of 2014 1 E.BALASUBRAMANIAM 2 T.MUTHUSAMY 3 THIRU.P.MURUGAN 4 T.NAGARAJAN 5 P.M.MUNNA SINGH 6 K.RAJENDRA PRASAD 7 V.RAJU 8 V.UTHIRAPATHY 9 D.PERIYASAMY 10 K.NACHIAPPAN 11 N.MUTHUKUMAR 12 D.MERCY 13 N.PARANTHAMAN 14 N.P.MURUGESAN 15 M.IGNACY 16 C.ANANTHAN 17 V.S.SANTHA 18 A.JAYARAMAN 19 S.KANAGARATHINAM 20 R.KRISHNAMOORTHI 21 G.DEVANATHAN 22 M.KOLANTHAISAMY 23 R.KANNAN 24 P.NARAYANAN 25 P.MUTHUSAMY 26 R.SUNDARAM 27 K.DURAISAMY 28 P.GANESAN 29 P.PAKKIRISAMY

30 A.BALASUBRAMANIAN 31 P.RAJAGOPAL 32 V.RANGARAJAN 33 R.VARADHARAJAN 34 K.NALLUSAMY 35 K.DEVARAJAN 36 S.S.THIYAGARAJAN 37 R.VASUDEVA RAO 38 T.N.PALANIVEL 39 R.JANAKIRAMAN 40 S.M.KANNAMMAL 41 A.AMALORPAVAM 42 S.KATTAMUTHU 43 M.RAJU 44 C.PALANIAMMAL 45 V.A.SUSAI MANICKAM 46 S.SUBBIAH 47 G.AROCKIAM 48 XAVIER LOUIS 49 P.RAJU 50 M.GERMANAPPAN 51 TMT.S.AROCKIAMMAL 52 A.JOSEPH SENKOLRAJ 53 R.MARIA JOSEPH XAVIER 54 V.MADHAVAN 55 P.DURAIRAJ 56 G.V.KIRUBAKARAN 57 V.PALANISAMY 58 A.SAMINATHAN 59 TMT.I.LILLY 60 R.MANIVASAGAM 61 N.PITCHAI 62 K.BALUCHAMY 63 K.ALAGAR 64 V.CHINAPPAN 65 K.BALASUBRAMANIAN 66 P.RAJENDRAN 67 S.CHANDRABOSE 68 P.VENKATARAMAN 69 V.VIRUMANDI 70 K.SUNDARAJAN 71 S.RAMASAMY 72 TMT.S.VEERAMMAL 73 S.ALAGARSAMY 74 D.ROBERT EBINESAR 75 V.SUBBIAH 76 P.MUTHUKRISHNAN 77 O.MALLAN

78 A.MARIASOOSAI 79 A.RAJENDRAN 80 TMT.KAMALAM JOHN KARUNA 81 A.VIAGULAM 82 P.PANDIAN 83 TMT.O.ANGELINE KAMALA BAI 84 K.KAMU 85 K.MARIAPPAN 86 S.VEERABADRAN 87 N.VAITHILINGAM 88 R.KANNAIYAN 89 A.JOSEPHINE MARY 90 M.JEBAMALAI RAJ ... Petitioners in WP No.27237 of 2014 1 V.RANGARAJALU 2 P.ARJUNAN 3 S.SUNDARA RAJAN 4 V.RAMALINGAM 5 D.MANOHARAN 6 P.MOHAN 7 D.THANIKACHALAM 8 M.MOHANA DOSS 9 K.ARUMUGAM 10 T.RUGMONY 11 DEVANESAN 12 S.MOHANDOSS 13 M.JEGAVELU 14 K.APPUSAMY 15 S.KRISHNAN 16 S.THOTHATHIRI 17 M.KALATHY ... Petitioners in WP No.27998 of 2014 1 R.ABDUL AZEEZ 2 K.CHINNAMUTHU 3 R.BILENDIRAN 4 N.S.VENKATESAN ... Petitioners in WP.No.29350 of 2014 1 S.ANNAMMAL 2 A.SIVANANDAM 3 MA.RADHAMBAL 4 R.RATHINAM 5 K.N.RATHINAM 6 M.SABIA 7 V.LAKSHMI 8 V.A.EKORAM 9 TMT.A.LAKSHMI 10 M.CAPRIAL 11 V.MEENAKSHI

12 R.MAYILATHAL 13 V.KRISHNAN ... Petitioners in WP No.30937 of 2014 1 K.NAGARATHINAM 2 A.LILLY PHILOMINA 3 G.AROKIAMARY 4 S.RAJAMANICKAM 5 M.MARY SUSEELA 6 V.SARA 7 A.JOTHIPRAKASAM 8 P.THILAGAVATHY 9 L.JANAKI 10 C.THIRAVIYAM 11 K.R.VASUDEVAN 12 A.ARULMARY JOSEPH 13 J.P.LEELA 14 S.MARY ... Petitioners in WP No.30938 of 2014 1 A.THIRUMALAISAMY 2 L.VENKATRAJU 3 B.V.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 4 V.PASUPATHI 5 N.SUBRAMANIAM 6 N.RASAMMAL 7 K.SAROJINI ... Petitioners in WP No.30939 of 2014 1 V.R.KANNUSAMY 2 K.KITTU 3 E.NANJAIYA 4 G.SAROJINI 5 R.RAJAMMAL 6 E.NANJUNDAN 7 P.V.RAJALAKSHMI 8 A.BATHIRAN 9 RANGHI ... Petitioners in WP No.30940 of 2014 1 V.CHIDAMBARAM 2 S.MUTHUKUMAR 3 D.SAMUVEL ... Petitioners in WP No.30941 of 2014 1 M.SENGAMALAI 2 M.SUNDARAM 3 R.VARADARAJULU 4 V.POONGOTHAI 5 K.MARAPPAN 6 S.R.NATARAJAN 7 A.YESAIYA 8 A.SENGUTTUVAN

9 K.DURAIRAJAPANDIAN 10 A.KAMALKHAN 11 K.P.SUBBIAH ... Petitioners in WP No.30942 of 2014 1 H.N.BALAKRISHNAMURTHY 2 N.SUBRAMANIYAM 3 M.KALIAPPAN 4 K.SRINIVASULU NAIDU 5 L.VENKATESAN 6 N.SATHYANARAYANA 7 K.ALIMELAMMA 8 G.NARAYANA REDDY 9 NANJUNDAMMA (FAMILY) 10 B.N.NANJUNDAPPA 11 T.GOPALAPPA 12 V.RAJA REDDY 13 A.KOTHANDARAMAIAH 14 K.E.S.BRUNDA KUMAR 15 M.MUNIRATHNAPPASETTY 16 G.V.PAPAIAH ... Petitioners in WP No.33025 of 2014 1 KRISHNAMURTHY 2 D.VEERAPATHRAN 3 C.SWAMINATHAN 4 K.M.RAMASAMY 5 V.K.RAMASWAMY 6 P.L.SEETHARAMAN 7 K.POONGAVANAM 8 G.KARUNAGARAN 9 V.PICHAMUTHU 10 S.VARADARAJAN 11 M.PICHAI 12 S.GOVINDARAJAN 13 M.PARAMESWARAN 14 P.M.KARUPPIAH 15 S.ANNAMALAI 16 G.SREEPATHY 17 S.DAKSHANAMOORTHY 18 K.V.VENUGOPALAN 19 K.RAJAGOPAL 20 V.SARANGAPANI 21 K.PREMAIYAN 22 R.THILLAIGOVINDAN 23 K.SUKUMARAN 24 K.VISWANATHAN 25 P.MANUEL 26 S.AMIRTHALINGAM 27 V.KAMALA

28 A.PONNUSAMY 29 J.CHANDRAPAUL 30 D.B.M.SUGIRTHARAJ 31 MUTHUSAMY RAJU 32 G.RAMAKRISHNAN 33 C.K.MANICKAM 34 V.HABIB RAHIMAN 35 D.DAVID 36 G.DURAIKANNU 37 R.GOVINDAPPA NAIDU 38 C.R.NARAYANAN 39 N.CHINNIKRISHNAN 40 M.A.ARUNAGIRI 41 C.PONNIAH 42 S.KANTHAN 43 K.MUTHU 44 A.MARIA JOHN 45 T.S.GANAPATHI 46 N.SRINIVASAN 47 P.MURUGESAN 48 A.DHANARAJAN 49 K.RAMASAMI 50 R.P.MEGANATHAN 51 V.SANKARAIAH 52 V.PADMANABAN 53 A.ESTHER YASOTHA 54 V.KANNAN 55 MANICKAM AMIRTHAM 56 M.VISWANATHAN 57 S.RAMALINGAM 58 P.LAKSHMI 59 K.RAJAGOPAL 60 R.JAYASEELI 61 A.PERIYASAMY 62 S.SOMASUNDARAM 63 R.NARAYANAN 64 G.MASANAM 65 P.NAGARATHINAM 66 K.DHANDAPANI 67 J.DHANAPAL 68 Y.AZIZ MIAN 69 P.SUNDARARAJU 70 M.AMBROSE 71 V.MARUDHAMUTHU 72 K.ADHIMOOLAM 73 C.V.SANKARAN 74 P.MUTHUSAMY 75 C.SRINIVASAN

76 C.BALASUBRAMANIAN 77 T.K.THIYAGARAJAN 78 A.KRISHNAN 79 N.CHENROYAN 80 S.RAMASAMY 81 S.PALANISAMY 82 A.KARUPPAN 83 M.SETHURAMAN 84 S.VASUDEVAN 85 M.PAUL RAJARATHINAM 86 P.MARIA LOUIS 87 S.RAMACHANDRAN 88 H.SYED AHMED BATCHA 89 H.SYED MOHIDEEN BATCHA 90 R.RAJENDRAN 91 M.MARUTHAI 92 S.SRINIVASAN 93 S.GOVINDASAMI 94 S.SHANMUGARAJ 95 R.THAMBACHI 96 K.SAMBANDAM 97 V.REGINAMARY 98 M.R.NATARAJAN 99 P.SUBRAMANIA GOUNDER 100 D.SRINIVASAN 101 V.DEVAGI 102 R.RAJAMMAL 103 V.ATHIMOOLAM 104 R.MAHENDHIRAN 105 S.THANGAVELU 106 K.PONNIAH 107 T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN 108 RM.SUBBIAH 109 V.R.MASILAMANI 110 V.RAMAMURTHI 111 R.NARAYANASAMI 112 P.GURUNATHAN 113 N.ELUMALAI 114 N.GOPALAKRISHNAN 115 P.BALAKRISHNAN 116 S.A.BAKSHI 117 D.BOOPALAN 118 K.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 119 M.PERUMAL ... Petitioners in WP No.33065 of 2014 1 G.D.SANTHANAM 2 O.M.PERUMAL 3 V.R.VARADHARAJAN

4 K.A.KULANDAIAPPAN 5 N.K.SUBBANNAN 6 M.RAJAPPA 7 P.SIVAGNANAM 8 N.THIAGARAJAN 9 K.V.SUBRAMANIAN 10 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN 11 M.JAYARAMAN 12 T.THANIKACHALAM 13 S.F.BERNARD 14 K.K.CHELLAPPA 15 N.SWAMINATHAN 16 C.RAMACHANDRAN 17 P.VIJAYAKUMAR 18 R.N.BATHRACHALAM 19 K.BHANU 20 K.GURUSWAMY 21 T.U.GNANADESIKAN 22 G.K.RAJENDRAN 23 S.VENKATESAN 24 V.PONNUVEL 25 K.KRISHNAN 26 H.S.RAJASEKARAN 27 N.LOGANATHAN 28 N.GOPICHAND 29 P.DEVADOSS 30 P.MURUGAN 31 M.A.HIRIYAN 32 PALANIAPPAN 33 P.S.MANICKAVASAGAM 34 N.MALLIGARJUNAN 35 V.THEAGARAJAN 36 P.ANNAMALAI 37 S.SAMBOORNARAMAN 38 P.SAMBASIVAM 39 N.K.RAMASAMY 40 S.P.PONNUSAMY 41 C.SWAMIKANNU 42 G.A.SIVARAMAN 43 M.RAMASWAMI 44 S.S.SUBRAMANIAN 45 P.R.RAMAKRISHNAN 46 M.MAHAVISHNU 47 G.NATESAN 48 J.ABDUL KALAM 49 T.BALAKRISHNAN 50 N.C.GOVINDARAJAN 51 R.VENKATARAMAN

52 D.PALANI CHETTY 53 N.EKAMBARAM 54 G.SYED SHERAJ 55 G.ARJUNAN 56 N.SRINIVASAN 57 V.PALANIVEL 58 JEYARAJ 59 G.RAMASAMY 60 MOHAMMED YUSUFF ... Petitioners in WP No.33727 of 2014 1 P.SUBRAMANIAM 2 K.JAYARAJ 3 S.D.ALAMELU RAMASAMY ... Petitioners in WP No.35190 of 2014 1 U.K.NATARAJAN 2 G.JESUPATHAM 3 E.P.RAMASAMY 4 M.SUBANNAN 5 R.VELLINGIRI

...Petitioners in WP No.35191 of 2014

1 K.S.BASKARAN 2 P.SUBBULAKSHMI 3 P.SARADAMBAL 4 R.RAMARAO 5 M.PALANISWAMY 6 K.GURUSWAMY 7 K.SUNDARA RAJAN 8 J.MARGARET

...Petitioners in WP No.35192 of 2014

1 S.PERUMAL 2 S.NARAYANASAMY 3 M.CHINNASAMY ... Petitioners in WP No.35193 of 2014 1 R.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 2 V.KARUPANNAN 3 G.SUBBULAKSHMI 4 G.S.SEETHARAMAN 5 K.K.VADIVELU 6 K.KUPPUSAMY 7 P.ALAGESAN 8 N.MUTHAIYAN ... Petitioners in WP No.35194 of 2014 1 C.GANAPATHY 2 R.KRISHNAMOORTHY 3 P.MURUGESAN 4 N.BALAKRISHNAN 5 T.C.GOVINDASAMY 6 R.SUNDARAMBAL ... Petitioners in WP No.35195 of 2014

1 R.LOURDUSAMY 2 C.AMIRTHALINGAM 3 V.APPASAMY 4 T.SRINIVASAN 5 N.RAMASUBRAMANIAN 6 P.G.HARI RAO 7 R.MOHAN 8 G.ARULPRAGASAM 9 K.PALANIVELU 10 P.SETHUMADHAVAN 11 T.RAJU 12 S.CHINNAPPA 13 K.VENKATRAMAN 14 C.BALASUNDARAM 15 M.CHELLAPERUMAL 16 K.DURAI RAJ 17 B.MURTHY RAJU 18 R.SELLAPAPPA 19 N.THIAGARAJAN 20 M.SUBRAMANIAN 21 V.MARGASAGAYAM 22 M.VENKATRAMAN 23 K.NEELAMEGAM 24 S.SAVITHIRI 25 C.NAMASIVAYAM 26 M.SRINIVASAN 27 N.GANESAMOORTHY 28 V.LAKSHMANA SUNDARAM 29 P.PERUMAL 30 S.PACHAIYAPPAN 31 K.J.GOPALAN 32 R.KASINATHAN 33 K.GOPALARATHINAM 34 B.S.RAJESWARI 35 K.MURUGESAN 36 K.VENKATARAMANAN 37 V.PATTABIRAMAN 38 K.ALAGAPPAN 39 SP.CHELLIAH 40 N.GANAPATHI SANTHANAM 41 M.INDIRA 42 S.KAVERI 43 V.KRISHNAMURTHI 44 K.LAKSHMANAN 45 RM.LAKSHMANAN 46 P.MALAIKOLUNDU 47 AL.MUTHUKRISHNAN

48 S.MUTHUKARUPPAN 49 M.A.PARAMASIVAM 50 A.SAVARIAMMAL 51 K.SUBBIAH 52 G.SUINDARARAJAN 53 D.KANNAIYAN 54 A.K.VENKATARAMAN 55 K.A.ABDUL HALEEM 56 K.L.NANJAN 57 J.NANJAN 58 B.N.JOGHEE 59 D.THEVATHANI 60 M.L.FRANCISCA 61 J.NANDHI 62 J.KAMALA 63 M.S.NANDHI 64 B.L.RAMAN 65 N.LAKSHMANAN 66 T.L.BHOJAN 67 B.M.RAJU 68 H.KAKKAMALLAN 69 B.BOJAN 70 H.MAHALINGAM 71 K.GILLAN 72 S.RAMAN 73 J.KARCHAN 74 T.J.MICHCHI 75 B.NANJAN 76 M.KUPPUSAMY 77 N.RAJAGOPALAN 78 S.RAJAPPAN 79 T.RAJENDRAN 80 K.JAYASEELI 81 NELSON JOHN 82 K.SARANGADHARAN 83 N.MEKALA 84 G.MASILAMANI 85 R.GOVINDASAMY 86 V.KANNAIYAN 87 G.KALIYAPERUMAL 88 V.NATARAJAN 89 K.VENKADHACHALAM 90 N.G.SRINIVASAN 91 V.KALYANASUNDARAM 92 A.SUSAINATHAN 93 S.THERASA 94 S.MUTHUKRISHNAN 95 R.NATARAJAN

96 A.SEETHARAMAN 97 N.KALIMUTHU 98 S.KRISHNAMURTHY 99 P.SINGARAM 100 P.SUNDARAM 101 K.V.RAMALINGAM 102 S.GOVINDARAJAN 103 M.JAYARAMAN 104 K.RAMACHANDRAN 105 N.JAYARAMAN 106 P.KASINATHAN 107 A.KALIAMURTHY 108 R.JAYARAMAN 109 N.KOTHANDAPANI 110 S.SIVASUBRAMANIAN 111 A.GOVINDARAJALU 112 K.RAMAMIRTHAM 113 S.ADAIKALASAMY 114 M.MANIMARAN 115 K.SUPPAMANI 116 C.GOPALAKRISHNAN ... Petitioners in WP No.3782 of 2015 TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION CHENNAI, REP. BY PRESIDENT A.MANIVANNAN ... Petitioner in WP No.5779 of 2015 S.M.CHELLASWAMY ... Petitioner in WP No.7115 of 2015 1 TAMIL NADU RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY AND AFFECTED MEMBERS OF AFFILIATED ASSOCIATIONS, D.P.I. CAMPUS, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6.

2 DINDIGUL DISTRICT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, DINDIGUL-624001.

3 GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, TIRUVARUL, 5/5 SHANMUGA SIKAMANI NAGAR KOVILPATTI ... Petitioners in WP No.12868 of 2015

1 TMT.S.AMMALU 2 T.P.PERUMA 3 M.RATHINAVELU 4 M.CHANDRABAI 5 TMT.KAMALA 6 TMT.G.CHOKKAMMAL 7 M.KESAVAN 8 TMT.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI 9 A.NAGAPPAN 10 M.CHANDRAKASAN 11 K.P.PARTHASARATHY 12 N.RAJENDRAN 13 R.SHYAMALA 14 C.SAMBANDAM 15 DAMODARAN NAIR 16 TMT.S.KRISHNAVENI 17 TMT.E.I.PRAMILA 18 S.CHANDRASEKARAN 19 V.KUNJIAPATHAM 20 S.ARUMUGHAM 21 N.NITHIYANANDAN 22 E.MUTHUKUMARASAMY 23 M.KRISHNAN 24 R.GURUSAMY 25 T.K.AYYAVU 26 NATANASABAPATHY 27 T.KANNIYAPPAN 28 T.M.BALASUBRAMANIAN 29 S.THANGARAJAN 30 T.R.RADHAKRISHNAN 31 A.S.SHANMUGAM 32 S.VINAYAGAM 33 N.VIJAYARANGAN ... Petitioners in WP No.12955 of 2015 1 DR.G.INDIRANI 2 T.K.M.SUNDARESAN 3 V.SWETHARANYAM 4 S.MUTHURAMAKRISHNAN 5 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN 6 K.P. SOUNDARARAJAN 7 R.N.DURAISAMY 8 RUBY DEBORAH DIRAVIAM 9 K.KALIAPPAN 10 K.R.SUSEELA DEVI 11 A.FRANCIS 12 K.SHEIK JABBAR ... Petitioners in WP No.14312 of 2015

1 M.PALANI 2 D.JOSEPH 3 G. RENGASAMY 4 R. ARUMUGAM 5 N.JAGATHEESAN ... Petitioners in WP No.30774 of 2015 1 R.SOMASUNDARAM 2 A.S.KALIYAMOORTHY 3 S.DAVID 4 O.R.KALIYAMOORTHY 5 S.MARIYAPRAKASAM 6 P.JANAKIRAMAN 7 M.BALASUBRAMANIYAN 8 L.PARTHASARATHY 9 R.T.RAJAN 10 A.L.MOHAMED NAZEER 11 A.PONNURANGAN 12 R.S.SUNDARAM 13 R.MANICKAM 14 N.CHAKRAPANI 15 S.GAJALAKSHMI 16 R.LOURDUSWAMY 17 R.VENUGOPAL 18 U.B.LIONAL 19 N.GNANAVEL 20 M.DHANARAJ 21 R.RAMALINGAM 22 C.DEVERAJAN ... Petitioners in WP No.3864 of 2015 -Vs1. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (A & E) 361, ANNA SALAI TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI- 600 018.

... Respondents in WP No.4874, 19667, 20191 of 2014 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PENSION) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

... Respondent in WP Nos.7590,

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, PANAGAL BUILDING, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15.

... Respondent in WP Nos.15371, 15372, 18609, 18901, 22322, 24908, 25702, 26070, 26409, 29350 of 2014 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE(PEN) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT CHENNAI 9 ... Respondent in WP Nos.15597 & 15598 of 2014 STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

... Respondent in WP No.18620 of 2014, 12868, 12955 of 2015

1. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.

2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), 361, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-18.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, PANAGAL BUILDINGS, SAIDAPET CHENNAI-18.

... Respondent in WP No.18966, 22471 23695, 23751, 24856, 25029, 25800, 26241, 27237, 27988 33065 of 2014, 3782, 30774 of 2015

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

..Respondent in W.P. 30939 to 30942/2014

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

... Respondents in WP No.30937 & 30938 of 2014 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

... Respondent in WP No.33025 of 2014

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, PANAGAL BUILDING, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15.

... Respondent in WP No.33727 & 14312 of 2014 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009. ...Respondent in WP 35190 to 35195 of 2014

1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES & ACCOUNTS, PANAGAL BUILDING, SAIDAPET CHENNAI-15.

... Respondents in WP No.5779 of 2015 THE PENSION PAYMENT OFFICER(S), E.V.K.SAMPATH MALIGAI, CHENNAI-600006.

... Respondent in WP No.7115 of 2015 1 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS PANAGAL BUILDINGS SAIDAPET CHENNAI-15.

3 THE TREASURY OFFICER, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

... Respondents in WP No.3864 of 2015 For Petitioners:

M/s A.R.NIXON ... WP No.4874, 7622, 18620, 18966, 19667, 20191, 22471, 23695,23751, 24856, 25029, 25800 27237, 27988, 33025, 33065 of 2014, 3782, 7115, 12955, 30774, 3864 of 2015 M/s S.P.Rajesh ... WP No.7590 of 2014 ... WP No.7622 of 2014 M/s R.Prem Narayan ... WP No.15371, 15372, 18609, 18901, 22322, 25702, 26070, 26409, 29350,33727 of 2014, 14312 of 2015 M/s S.Sivakumar ... WP No.15597 & 15598 of 2014 M/s K.Sannjay ... WP No.24908 of 2014, 5779 of 2015 M/s L.Chandrakumar ... WP No.26241 of 2014 M/s R.Saseetharan ... WP No.30937 to 30942, 35190 to 35195 of 2014 M/s Satish Parasaran ... WP No.12868 of 2015 For Respondents: M/s V.JAYNARAYANAN AG, Assisted by Mr.I.SATISH AGP for 1st Respondent.

Mrs.T.S.Selvarani for ACCTN GENERAL for 2nd Respondent in All WPs Prayer in WP No.4874 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration in the nature of Wirt Declaring that the G.O.Ms.No.

363 dated 23.8.2013 passed by the 1st respondent is not accordance with the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8848-8840 of 2012 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to modify the Government Order by rectifying the discrepancies mentioned below: (a) The prayer in the Supreme Court of India is to extend the benefit of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.272 Finance (Pension) Department dated 15.6.1998 to those who retired on or after 01.06.1988 up to 31.12.1995. The period comes under the Fifth Tamil Nadu pay Commission. Hence it may not be proper on the part of the 1st Respondent to order for the adoption of scales of pay of the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission for Computing pre-revised pension. If the concept is adopted there is no meaning in constituting Pay Commissions for the revision of scales of pay.

Because of the adoption of the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission Scales of Pay, the petition icurs a loss of Rs.1700 P.M. Consequently the 1st Respondent may be directed to modify it as Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission Scales of Pay instead of Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. Prayer in WP No.7590 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to extend the benefit of adding the entire D.A. actually drawn by the employees retired during the period of 10 months proceeding to the retirement for reckoning average emoluments and for computing pension, to the petitioners consequent on the judgment dated 06.05.1996 in O.A. 4953/92 by Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which was implemented by government in G.O.Ms.No.272 and 273 fin. (Pen.) Dept. dated 15.06.

1998 read with G.O.449 fin. (Pension) Department dated 12.10.1999 to the petitioners retired from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1995 with all consequential pensionory benefits with arears Prayer in WP No.7622 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records in Letter No.43/FS/T/PGC/2014 dated 17.2.2014 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and issue consequent direction directing the respondent to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms.No.272 Finance (pension) Department dated 15.06.98 by increasing the pension from the date of retirement and pay the consequential arrears and Pensionory benefits to the members of petitioner Association.

Prayer in WP No.15371, 15372, 18609, 22322 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in

Letter No.61495 (MS)/ PGC/ 2013 Finance (PGC)/ Department dated 4.2.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant Revision of Pension in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.363 Finance (PGC) Department dated 23.8.2013 and as per the Pension Revision authorized by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu in Proceeding PO3/ 1/10309859/ PPO dated 1.3.2014 and pay all the arrears of pension and consequential monetary beenfits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum Common Prayer in WP No.15597 & 15598 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to re-fix the pension and disburse the arrears as per the Government order issued in G.O.No.363 dated 23.08.2013 within a reasonable time Prayer in WP No.

18620 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the Pensioners of the petitioner Association to computer average emoluments for the calculation of pension adopting the Dearness Allowance drawn at the time of their retirement as Dearness Pay from 1.1.1996 to as on date Prayer in WP No.18901, 26070 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.363 Finance (PGC) Department dated 23.08.2013 and the impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent in letter No.61495(MS)/ PGC/2013 Finance(PGC)/Department dated 04.02.

2014 and quash these orders and consequently directing the respondents to extend the benefit of adding the entire Dearness allowance actually drawn by the petitioners during the period of 10 months preceding to their retirement for reckoning average emoluments and for computing pension in the revised scale with all consequential pensionary and monetary benefits with arrears Common Prayer in WP No. 18966, 22471, 23695, 23751, 24856, 25029, 25800, 27237, 27998 of 2014, 3782, 30774 of 2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring the clarification letter issued by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.61495 (Ms.)/ PGC/2013 Finance (PGC) Department Dated 04.02.2014 and its allied Letter No.24056/PGC/2014-1 Finance (PGC) Department dated 28.05.

2014 as null and void and unenforceable in the eye of law, further the 2nd Respondent has not raised any such doubt from the 1st Respondent through the letter Pen 30/1-76/2013-14/96083 dated 23.10.

clarification letter dated 04.02.2014 and thereby direct the 1st Respondent to issue orders for the payment of arrears of Dearness Allowance for the difference of the pre-revised pension minus original pension from the date of retirement to till date as the Dearness Allowance/pay is one of the may components, which go into the eventual determination of pension as specifically indicated by the Apex Court in paragraph 30 of its Judgment dated 17.01.2013 and direct the 1st Respondent to issue instructions to the 3rd Respondent to revise the pension automatically as per G.O.174 dated 21.04.1998 and G.O.235 dated 01.06.2009 as already ordered in paragraph 15 of G.O.363 dated 23.08.2013 as for as the Petitioner is concern and pay the consequential arrears within a stipulated period Prayer in WP No.

19667 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the G.O.Ms. No.363 dt 23.8.2013 passed by the 1st respondent is null and void and not in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8848-8883 of 2012 and directed the respondent to sanction the payment of gratuity members of the petitioner Association to the pensioners for the difference of pension as per Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission (G.O.No.235 dt 1.6.2009) of scales of pay as per the orders of the Apex Court dt 17.1.2013 in Civil Appeal No.8848 to 8883 of 2013 Prayer in WP No. 20191 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 23.08.

2013 passed by the 1st Respondent is null and void and not accordance with the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8848-8840 of 2012 and directed the Respondent to sanction the payment of gratuity to the pensioners for the difference of pension as per Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission of scales of pay as per the orders of the Apex Court dated 14.08.2013 in Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013 Prayer in WP No.24908 of 2014, 5779 of 2015 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent in its Letter No. 61495(MS)/ PGC/2013 Finance (PGC) Dept., dated 04.02.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the petitioner pension as per G.O.Ms. No.363 dated 23.08.

2013 based on the Judgment of the Apex Court Prayer in WP No.

India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st Respondent in Letter No. 61495 (MS) / PGC /2013 dated 04.02.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant revision of Pension in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 363 Finance (PGC) Department dated 23.08.2013 and pay all the arrears of pension and other consequential monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum Prayer in WP No.26241 of 2014 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned clarifications issued by the 1st respondent in Letter NO.61495 (Ms.)/ PGC/2013 Finance (PGC) Department dated 4.2.2014 and that of the Letter No.24056/ PGC/2014-1 Finance (PGC) Department dated 28.

5.2014 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to extend all benefits including the payment of arrears of Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay as well as revision of pension, etc., thereto, as per G.O.Ms.No.174 dated 21.4.1998, G.O.235 dated 1.6.2009 and as per paragraph -15 of G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 23.8.2013 Prayer in WP No.26409 of 2014 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.363 Finance (PGC) Department dated 23.8.2013 and quash the same in so far as it deprives the benefits conferred in G.O.Ms.No.272 Finance (Pension) Department dated 15.6.

1998 in the pay scale to the family pensioners consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of adding the entire Dearness Allowance actually drawn by the spouses of the petitioners during the period of 10 months preceding to their retirement for reckoning average emoluments and for compouting family pension in the revised scale with all consequential pensionary and moneary benefits with arrears Common Prayer in WP No.30937 to 30942, 35190 to 35195 of 2014 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent issued in G.O.MS.No.363 Finance (PGC) Department dated 23.8.2013 and the clarification Letter NO.51882/PGC/2013 Finance (PGC) Department dated 30.9.

or after 1.6.1988 and add the same as emoluments for the purpose of pensionary benefits and to arrive at a revised pensionary benefits and to grant arrears of pension and pensionary benefits Prayer in WP No. 33025 of 2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in Letter No. 38392/Nee Va 2 (1)/ 2013 dt 31.12.2013 and quash the same thereby direct the respondent to count the period of services rendered by the petitioners in the place of Higher Grade Service above with Secondary Grade Service and award of Selection / Special Grade scale of pay and revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners Prayer in WP No.

33065 of 2014 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring the clarification letter issued by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.61495 (Ms.)/PGC/2013 Finance (PGC) Department Dated 04.02.2014 and its allied Letter No.24056/PGC/2014-1 Finance (PGC) Department dated 28.05.2014 as null and void and unenforceable in the eye of law, direct the 1st Respondent to issue orders for the payment of arrears of Dearness Allowance for the difference of the pre-revised pension minus original pension from the date of retirement to till date as the Dearness Allowance / pay is one of the many components, which go into the eventual determination of pension as specifically indicated by the Apex Court in paragraph 30 of its Judgment dated 17.01.

2013 and direct the 1st respondent to tissue instructions to the 3rd Respondent to revise the pension automatically as per G.O.174 dated 21-4-1998 and G.O.235 dated 1-6-2009 as already ordered in paragraph 15 of G.O.363 dated 238-2013 as far as the petitioners are concerned and pay and consequential arrears within a stipulated period Prayer in WP No.7115 of 2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to revise the Pension of the Petitioner as per the representation of the petitioner dated 1.12.2014 along with interest Prayer in WP No.12868 of 2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, Calling for the records of the respondent comprised in G.O.No.

363 finance(PGC)Department dated 23/08/2013 and the consequent letters bearing No.61495(Ms.)/PGC/2013 dated 04/02/2014 and No.

contemplated under Para 14 and the restriction stipulated in part 15 to the effect that only to those pensioners WHO retired between 01/06/1988 and 31/12/1995 and who are alive on the date of issue of this order are eligible for the benefit under this G.O., as being arbitry, illegal, irrational and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india and consequently direct the respondent to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.363 Finanace (PGC) Department dated 23.08.2013 to all the pensioners, including the pensioners who had retired between 1.6.1988 and 31.12.

1995 but had subsequently died, without resorting to the notional pay fixation procedure as contemplated under para 14 and also consequently revise the pension and/or family pension, as the case may be, payable to the spouse/legal heirs of such deceased pensioners/family pensioners with retrospective effect from the date of on which the became due by applying G.O.Ms. No.174 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 21.04.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 with consequential monetary benefits, including the payments due Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity scheme Prayer in WP No.12955 of 2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, Calling for the records relating to the G.O.Ms. No. 363 Finance (PGC) Department dt 23.8.

2013 issued by the respondent in so far as it relates to para 15 restricting the eligibility under the G.O. to all those pensioners retired between 1.6.1988 to 31.12.1995 and quash the same thereby consequently direct the respondent to treat Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay and the same may be extended to other pensionary benefits to the Pensioners, Family Pensioners and the Legal Heirs Prayer in WP No.3865 of 2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring the clarification letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 4.2.2014 and its allied letter No.24056PGC 2014/1 Finance dated 28.5.

2014 and the illustration prepared by the 2nd respondent as null and viod and consequentially issue orders for the payment of arrears as authorized by the Accountant General, Chennai and as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 23.8.2013 within a stipulated period.

C O M M O N O R D E R The issues involved in all these batch of writ petitions are one and the same, hence all the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by means of this common order.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of all these writ petitions are as follows:

(i) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are various pensioners associations or individual pensioners who have retired from service between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995. (ii) This is a second round litigation.

(iii) The pension payable on the emoluments received by a retired employee is prescribed under Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). As per Rule 30, the emoluments means and include, pay, special pay, dearness pay, personal pay, and any other remuneration which may be specifically ordered as emoluments by the Government.

(iv) In the year 1975, based on the recommendations of the Dearness Allowance Committee, the Dearness Allowance received by the employees were treated as Dearness Pay, so as to grant the benefit of pension, gratuity etc., (v) Subsequently, the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission recommended to treat the Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay at the end of three years for the purpose of pension. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.371, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 30.04.1986, implemented the recommendations only in respect of the employees who have retired on or after 01.10.1987. (vi) The cut-off date fixed in the above said Government Order and a Government Letter dated 08.07.1986, were challenged by Ambasamudaram Taluk Pensioners Association and another association viz.

, Sankarankoil Taluk Pensioners Association before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the State Government to allow the benefit of Dearness Pay even to those who retired prior to 01.10.1987. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the order passed by the Tribunal has been confirmed. (vii) Thereafter, the Government issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.272, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 15.06.1998, allowing the entire Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of calculating pension to those who have retired between 01.04.1979 and 30.09.1987.

(viii) The above said G.O. was followed by another G.O. in G.O.Ms.No.273, Finance (Pension) Department dated 15.06.1998, extending the benefit to the employees who have retired during 02.10.1970 and 31.01.1975.

(ix) By virtue of the above said G.Os., the entire Dearness Allowance was treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of calculating pension for the employees who have retired between 01.04.1979 and 30.09.1987 and from 02.10.1970 to 31.01.1975 respectively.

(x) Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the pay and pension were revised with effect from 01.06.1988, by Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.810, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 09.08.1989. In the said G.O. in pensionary benefits for the employees who have retired after 01.06.1988, the dearness pay was allowed only with certain percentage. By virtue of the said G.O. compute the pensiorary benefit of an employee who has pay range upto Rs.3,500/- the rate of dearness pay was allowed at 13% of pay, and for an employee whose pay range is above Rs.3,500/- but not exceeding Rs.6,000/-, the rate of dearness pay was 9% of pay, subject to a minimum of Rs.455/-, and for an employee whose pay range is above Rs.6,000/-, the rate of dearness pay was 8% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.540/-.

(xi) The said G.O. was challenged by some pensioners before this Court in W.P.No.32045 of 2005 etc., batch on the ground that, the slab system which was introduced for computation of pension depending on the pay scale, amounts to taking away the benefits which was granted to them earlier and it will cause financial loss to the pensioners. That apart, the cut-off date fixed by the Government is also arbitrary.

(xii) A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions holding that, the entire dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of calculating pension and further held that as per the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, there cannot be any discrimination between the pensioners.

(xiii) Challenging the above order as well as various other similar orders passed in various writ petitions, writ appeals were filed by the respondent Government in W.A.Nos.1002 of 2006 etc., batch. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 17.12.2007, allowed the writ appeals holding that, no employee has a right to draw the dearness allowance as dearness pay unless the Government specifically treats such dearness

allowance as dearness pay, and it is always open to the State Government to treat dearness allowance or a part of it as dearness pay for the purpose of computation of pension and it is also open to the State Government not to treat such dearness allowance as dearness pay. It is for the employer to decide whether dearness allowance could be treated as dearness pay or not. The Division Bench has also held that, the cut-off date fixed in the above said G.O. Viz., 01.06.1988, is not arbitrary, as the said cut-off date has been fixed based on the recommendations of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. The employees who have retired prior to 01.06.1988, were getting salary in the pre-revised scales of pay, on the other hand those who have retired on or after 01.06.

1988, their pay was calculated in the revised scale of pay which is much higher than the pre-revised scales of pay. The Division Bench has further held that employees who have retired prior to 01.06.1988 or after 30.06.1988, in a similar post are getting almost similar quantum of pension, hence there is no discrimination and the cut-off date fixed by the State Government is not arbitrary. (xiv) Challenging the judgement of the Division Bench, a batch of Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the pensioners, in C.A.No.8861 to 8863 of 2012 etc., batch. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgement dated 17.01.2013, allowed all the appeals thereby setting aside the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.12.2007 and also set aside the G.O.Ms.No.

810, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 09.08.1989, to the extent it extends the benefits to employees who retire on or after 01.06.1988, a lower component of dearness pay as against those who had retired prior to 01.06.1988, as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (xv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that, there is no valid justification for the Government to classify the similarly placed pensioners who have retired prior to 01.06.1988 and after that date. It was further held that, the purpose of adding the component of dearness pay to wages for calculating pension is to offset the effect of inflation, therefore, the classification made by the Government placing employees who have retired after 01.06.

1988, at a disadvantageous position and allowed them a lower component of dearness pay, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory.

(xvi) Subsequently, in order to implement the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent Government issued the impugned Government Order in G.O.No.363, Finance (PGC) Department, dated 23.08.2013, thereby permitting the pensioners

who have retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 to compute average emoluments notionally for the purpose of calculation of pension based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay and with reference to the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance applicable in the pre-revised scale of pay sanctioned from time to time as dearness pay for the entire 10 months preceding retirement. Further the pensioners who have retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995, shall have the option to opt for the above formula or to retain the current pension, whichever is advantageous to them.

It was also further stated that, if the option is exercised for the pre-revised scale to calculate the pension, the excess pay and allowances and terminal benefits, if any, drawn by them in the revised scale of pay prior to their retirement shall be waived as a special case. It was also further stated in the impugned G.O that, as the revision of pension ordered above is based on the option to be exercised by the pensioners to their advantage, the above order shall be eligible to all those pensioners retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 and those who are alive on the date of issue of the Government Order.

3. Now challenging the above G.O. and the subsequent clarification letters issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.02.2014 and 25.03.2014, the present batch of writ petitions have been filed.

4. The impugned Government Order has been challenged mainly on the following grounds:

(i) As the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 09.08.1989, so far as fixing the lower component of dearness pay, the Government ought to have applied the G.O.Ms.Nos.272 and 273 dated 15.06.1998, treating the entire dearness allowance as dearness pay preceding the date of retirement in respect of pensioners who retired after 01.06.1988. (ii) The respondent State has taken only the dearness allowance as dearness pay drawn in the pre-revised scale i.e. based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission recommendations, which only relates to the period from 01.10.1978 to 31.05.1988, not from 10 month preceding the date of retirement of the pensioners, who have retired from 01.06.1988 to 31.12.1995, which was the 5th Pay Commission period.

(iii) Under Rule 31 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, emolument has to be determined with reference to the date of retirement i.e. 10 months preceding the retirement. Hence the G.O. runs contrary to Rule 31 of the Rules, and the Government ought to have taken the dearness pay drawn during 10 months

preceding their retirement, and not the previous pay commission period viz., the 4th Pay Commission period.

(iv) In the impugned Government order, the benefit was granted only to the pensioners who were alive and it is not available to the family members of the pensioner who have died. Thus, it is arbitrary and discriminatory and the benefits should be extended to the legal representatives of the deceased pensioners also.

(v) The financial constraint expressed by the Government cannot be a reason for denying the benefit to the pensioners.

5. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit, after elaborating the various earlier G.Os. issued by the Government treating the dearness allowance as dearness pay and also the previous orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent has stated that, in order to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned G.O. has been passed. The Government of Tamil Nadu, after considering various factors has adopted the Central Pay Commission System, w.e.f. 01.06.1988, under which there would be an automatic revision of the basic pension as and when pay revision is taken up, unlike the period prior to this. Thus, it is on this basis that the basic pension has been revised upwards by 40% for all existing pensioners with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2007, when the Government of Tamil Nadu has ordered pay revisions.

6. Further, according to the respondents, the Government has implemented the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by extending the benefits of G.O.Ms.Nos.272 and 273 dated 15.06.1998, to those who have retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995, with reference to the pre-revised scales of pay and issued the impugned G.O.

7. Subsequently the Government vide letter dated 04.02.2014, has clarified that as the dearness allowance drawn on the date of retirement has already been merged, the percentage merged in this regard may be excluded while re-fixing pension as on 01.01.1996. While doing so, if the revised pension happens to be lesser than that of the existing pension, the pensioner may be allowed to draw his existing pension. If the amount of dearness allowance already drawn is found to be in excess, the same need not be taken into account for the period from the date of retirement upto 31.12.1995 and the same may be ignored.

8. It is further stated by the respondents that, based on the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission recommendations, the State

Government has extended Central scales of pay to its employees w.e.f 01.06.1988, subsequently the next two Pay Commissions were implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006, respectively by merging the same quantum of dearness allowance drawn by the serving employees and the pensioners following the Government of India pattern. Hence, automatic pension revision has been allowed to the pensioners as in the case of the serving personnel. After implementation of the Central scales of pay, the question of allowing the dearness allowance as dearness pay for pensionary benefits during the subsequent pay commission period viz., 01.01.1996, does not arise. Hence, the discrimination and division among the pensioners does not arise as the implementation of the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission w.e.f 01.10.1984 and the implementation of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission was w.e.f. 01.06.1988, in which the scales of pay of the Government servants were revised on par with the Central Scales of pay. Hence, there is no discrimination among the homogeneous group of pensioners.

9. It is further stated by the respondents that the revision of pension ordered based on the option to be exercised by the pensioners to their advantage and the above orders shall be eligible to all those pensioners who have retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 and who are alive on the date of issue of this order and hence there is no arbitrariness, irrationality or illegality in the impugned Government Order.

10. It is further stated by the respondents that, the State expenditure on pension has increased manifold, in 2006-2007 the total number of pensioners were 5,60,168/-, and expenditure was Rs.5,442 crores. In 2011-2012, the total number of pensioners increased to 7,53,890 and pension expenditure was Rs.12,273 crores. As expenditure on pension liability to the State Government is unsustainable in the long run and to curtail the recurring expenditure on pension, the New Contributory Pension scheme has been implemented with effect from 01.04.2003. Therefore, considering the financial constraints there is no justification to extend the benefit of the impugned G.O. to others also.

11. The request of the petitioners to treat the dearness allowance actually drawn by the employees at the time of retirement as dearness pay for calculation of pension cannot be accepted. Consequent to the recommendations of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the revised Central pay scales as per the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission were implemented w.e.f. 01.06.1988 and the Central scale of pay was implemented to State Government

employees on 01.06.1988, when the all India Consumer Price Index was 687 points, as against 608 points merged by the 4th Central Pay Commission. In order to bridge this gap, the difference in all India Consumer Price index points was considered as Dearness Pay to set right the anomaly of lesser emoluments in the revised pension. Further after the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission scales of pay there is no concept of treating the dearness allowance as dearness pay for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.

12. In the above circumstances, as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the benefit of G.O.Ms.Nos.272 and 273 dated 15.06.1998, were extended to those who retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995, with reference to the pre-revised scales of pay by computing the average emoluments notionally for the purpose of calculation of pension, based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay with reference to the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance applicable in the pre-revised scales of pay as dearness pay for the entire 10 months i.e. preceding 10 months before the retirement of an employee as though they would have continued in the same scale of pay without subsequent pay revision. Hence, the impugned G.O. has been implemented as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and there is no illegality in it.

13. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned senior counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners would contend that, the impugned Government Order has been issued in total violation of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The pension is calculated based on the average emoluments. 'Emoluments' is defined under Rule 30 of the Rules, which includes not only pay, also the special pay, dearness pay and personal pay. 'Average emoluments' is defined under Rule 31 of the Rules, as the emoluments drawn by a Government Servant during the last ten months prior to the retirement. Hence, the dearness pay consists of components of emoluments for the purpose of calculating pension.

14. According to the learned senior counsel, the object was to incorporate dearness pay component to the pension in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules, but the impugned Government order defeat the very object by excluding the dearness pay component for subsequent years at the time of refixation of pension. Thus, the petitioners' statutory entitlement has been deprived.

15. Further according to the learned senior counsel, the subsequent Government Letters impugned herein, has actually modified and override the impugned G.O. Thus, petitioners' entitlement to subsequent revision has been nullified by the impugned Government Letters. At any rate a circular/letter, cannot override a Government Order, which has been issued on behalf of the Governor, under Article 162 r/w Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

16. The learned senior counsel further contended that, the exclusion of dearness pay component for the purpose of revision is not borne out by any statutory provision or any Rules. The pensioners who have retired during the relevant period are in a disadvantageous position and they have been discriminated as against the other retirees of all other periods as they are provided a revision of pension after incorporation of dearness pay.

17. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the impugned G.O. incorporates a notional fixation of pay based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay for the pensioners in the relevant period. The pension computation on the basis of a notional pay is contrary to the applicable Rules and also the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The pensioners are entitled to the benefit of dearness allowance actually drawn prior to retirement, but it has been denied by the impugned G.O. Hence, the impugned G.O. has to be read down in so far as the notional fixation is concerned and the petitioners should be permitted to compute the pension based on the actual scale of pay and the dearness allowance drawn at the time of retirement.

18. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the impugned G.O. discriminates between the pensioners who are alive on the date of issue of the impugned G.O. and the pensioners who have already died, without any rational basis as the entire pensioners constitutes a homogeneous class, and there cannot be any discrimination between them. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, on that ground also the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside.

19. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners would contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 09.18.1989, in so far as fixing the lower component of dearness pay thereby restoring the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence the respondent Government should allow the benefit as per

G.O.Ms.Nos.272 and 273, dated 15.06.1998, by treating the dearness allowance as dearness pay actually drawn ten months preceding the date of retirement of the petitioners and ought not to have taken the dearness allowance as dearness pay drawn in the pre-revised scale which relates to the period from 01.10.1978 to 31.05.1988 and not 10 months preceding the date of retirement of the petitioners, as the scale of pay in prerevised scale is lower than the revised scale of pay. The Government has adopted a lower component indirectly, which is totally against the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

20. The learned counsel further contended that as per Rule 31 of the Rules, the average emolument shall be determined with reference to the emoluments drawn by a Government servant during 10 months preceding the date of retirement. Further in the impugned G.O. the Government only permitted dearness allowance in the pre-revised scale which is contrary to Rule 31 of the Rules. The learned counsel further contended that financial constraint cannot be a reason to deny a legal entitlement of the petitioners and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clearly held that financial constraint is not a reason stated by the Government to fix a lower component of dearness pay. In such circumstances, it is not open to the Government to come out with a new plea of financial constraint and the same should not be permitted.

21. Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners reiterated the arguments put forth by the other counsels, and further submitted that the impugned G.O. is totally contrary to the earlier view taken by the Government. In the Note file relating to the impugned G.O., the Government has decided to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.272, dated 15.06.1988 to the pensioners who have retired after 01.06.1988, subsequently based on the remarks made by the Accountant General (A&E), Chennai, changes were made and the impugned G.O. has been issued contrary to the earlier decision taken by the Government.

There is no reason to deny the petitioners to compute average emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension based on the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay with the percentage of dearness allowance sanctioned from time to time as dearness pay for the entire 10 months preceding retirement and the denial of benefits of the impugned G.O. to the legal heirs / family pensioners would amount to clear discrimination. The learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent impugned Government Letters are totally contrary to the impugned G.O. and hence it is also liable to be set aside.

22. Mr.V.Chandrakanthan, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners submitted that the impugned G.O. has been issued in total violation of Rules 30 and 31 of the Rules and also in total violation of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

23. Per contra, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent State would contend that, the G.O. impugned in these writ petitions is in total conformity with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and it is not in violation as alleged by the writ petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the earlier G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 09.08.1989, to the extent that the fixing of lower component of dearness pay for the employees retired on or after 01.06.1988 as against those who have retired prior to 01.06.1988, in all other aspects the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the G.O.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clearly held that the Government has the right to choose whether the dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay or not, and further held that it is open to the State Government not to treat any part of dearness allowance as dearness pay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that in case of financial constraints, that would be the most appropriate course to be adopted and the State Government has the right to choose how much of dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay, and no employee has right to draw dearness allowance as dearness pay until the Government decided on the same.

24. The learned Advocate General further submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the above judgement should not be misconstrued as a determination of the total carry home pension of an employee and the adjudication of the present controversy is only on dearness pay rather than on the eventual carry home pension.

25. The learned Advocate General further submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the cut-off date fixed by the Government on the ground that it discriminates one set of pensioners with another while calculating pension payable to them, without any justification or basis for the above said classification. By the impugned G.O. that discrimination has been rectified and the pensioners who have retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995, shall be permitted to compute average emoluments notionally for calculation of pension based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay and with reference to the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance applicable in the pre-revised scale of pay sanctioned from time

to time as dearness pay. Consequent to the recommendations of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission the revised Central pay scales were implemented w.e.f. 01.06.1988 and the Central scales of pay was implemented to the State Government employees w.e.f. 01.06.1988, when All India Consumer Price Index was 687 points as against the 608 points merged by the 4th Central Pay Commission. Hence after the 5th Pay Commission scales of pay, there is no concept of treating dearness allowance as dearness pay for the purpose of pensionary benefits during the 5th Pay Commission period. Hence, as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.272, dated 15.06.1998, were extended to all the employees who retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 with reference to the pre-revised scale of pay.

26. The learned Advocate General also further submitted that the subsequent impugned Government letter dated 04.02.2004, is only a clarification to the effect that the dearness allowance drawn on the date of retirement has already been merged and the percentage merged in this regard may be excluded while re-fixing pension as on 01.01.1996, and it was further clarified that the revised pension happens to be lesser than that of the existing pension, the pensioner may be allowed to draw his existing pension and by allowing merger, if the dearness allowance already drawn is found to be in excess, the same need not be taken into account. It is only a clarification issued by the Government and it does not override the impugned G.O.

27. As per the impugned G.O. the revision of pension is based on the option to be exercised by the pensioner to their advantage, hence the above orders were made applicable only to those who are alive on the date of issuance of the G.O. Only, and it cannot be made applicable to the persons who are not alive on the said date. Hence, it cannot be stated as discriminatory.

28. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that, the writ petitioners are ready to get the benefit of dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance sought for by them w.e.f 01.10.2017 or 01.10.2019, without any arrears and sought the State Government to consider their request. In this regard, the learned Advocate General produced a letter dated 23.12.2019, addressed to him by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, wherein it has been stated that as per the impugned G.O. the pension of 22,672 pensioners have been revised and if the petitioners request is accepted the

immediate financial commitment as arrears would work out to Rs.590.12 crores and the request for revision as on 01.10.2019 is considered, the expected expenditure will be Rs.147.53 crores and the aggregate financial implication will be Rs.4997 crores over a period of 10 years and the State Government is not in a healthy fiscal position to incur this expenditure and the Government is also not in a position to agree to the said request.

29. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully.

30. Before considering the dispute in the present writ petitions, it will be useful to refer to the relevant Rules as well as the various G.Os. treating dearness allowance as dearness pay as one of the components for fixing the pensionary benefits.

31. Pension of a retired employee was fixed on the basis of emolument of the employee receiving before his retirement, under Rule 30 of the Rules. The emolument includes pay, special pay, dearness pay, personal pay and other remuneration which may be specifically permitted as emoluments by the Government. The relevant rule reads as follows:

"Rule 30: Emoluments: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,

(1) Emoluments means and include:- (i) Pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity (including temporary capacity under emergency provisions) or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre:

(ii) special pay, dearness pay and personal pay; and (iii) any other remuneration which may be specially classed as emoluments by the Government."

Under the above Rule, the dearness pay is one of the components of emolument.

32. In the year 1970, the Government by order dated 11.03.1970, included the dearness allowance as a component of

wages for calculating pension for the employees who have retired in a particular period. However, that restriction has been held illegal and the benefit was directed to be extended to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement.

33. Thereafter, in the year 1975, based on the recommendations of the Dearness Allowance Committee, in G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 06.02.1975, the Government directed that the dearness allowance received by an employee should be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of calculation of pension and that revision was made applicable to the employees who have retired on or after 01.02.1975. However, by an order of this Court, the benefit was extended to the employees who have retired between 02.10.1970 and 31.01.1975 and the dearness allowance actually drawn by a retired employee was treated as dearness pay for calculation of pension.

34. Subsequently, in the year 1986, in G.O.Ms.No.371, dated 30.04.1986, based on the recommendation of the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, only for employees retired on or after 01.10.1987, the dearness allowance sanctioned up to that period reckoned as dearness pay for the purpose of pension. The said Government Order was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.2227/92 and 4953/92 by some of the pensioner's association and the Tribunal set aside the said G.O. and directed the Government to give the benefit of dearness pay to the employees who have retired prior to 01.10.1987 also, that order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

35. Thereafter, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.272, dated 15.06.1998, allowing the entire dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance as dearness pay, for all the employees who retired between 01.04.1979 to 31.05.1988. By another order in G.O.Ms.No.273, dated 15.06.1998 the above benefits were extended to the employees who have retired from 02.10.1970 to 31.10.1975. Thus, the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance sanctioned from time to time upto 30.09.1987 and actually drawn by an employee, were allowed as dearness pay for entire 10 months preceding retirement for computation of average emolument for calculation of pensionary benefits.

36. In the meantime, the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission made recommendations for revision of pay and pension. Accepting the said recommendation, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 09.08.1989, introducing a slab system for adding dearness allowance as dearness pay for the purpose of

calculating pension, which reads as follows:

"3....They accordingly direct that pensionery benefits of employees retired/retiring on or after 1 st June 1988 be computed by adding "Dearness Pay" along with pay, at the following percentage rates:- Pay range Rate of dearness pay (1) (2) (i) Up to Rs.3,500 ..

13 per cent of pay.

(ii) Above Rs.3,500 but not exceeding Rs.6,000.. 9 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.455.

(iii) Above Rs.6,000 .. 8 per cent of pay subject to minimum of Rs.540."

The above revision was made applicable to the employees who retired on or after 01.06.1988.

37. The above G.O. came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.32045 and 32089 of 2005. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 20.04.2006, set aside the G.O. and allowed the writ petitions holding that, the entire dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of calculating pension and further held that as per the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, there cannot be any discrimination between the pensioners. Challenging the above order, the respondent Government filed writ appeals before this Court in W.A.Nos.1002 of 2006 (etc., batch). Apart from that some other writ petitions pending before this Court were also tagged along with the writ appeals, and by judgement dated 17.12.2007, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal and upheld the validity of the said G.O.

Writ appeals were allowed mainly on the ground that the employees have no right to claim dearness allowance as dearness pay and it is for the Government to decide how to treat the dearness allowance as dearness pay to its employees and it is also open to the State Government not to treat such dearness allowance as dearness pay for the purpose of calculation of pension, it is for the employer to decide whether dearness allowance has to be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of computing pension. The Division Bench has also held that the cut-off date fixed in the said G.O. had a nexus as the revision has been made pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission.

38. The above judgement of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by various affected persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by an elaborate judgement dated

17.01.2013, allowed the appeals and set aside a part of G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 09.08.1989, so far as fixing a lower component of dearness pay for its employees retired after 01.06.1988. While allowing the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the dearness allowance is extended to the employees to balance the effects of ongoing inflation, so as to ensure that inflation does not interfere with the enjoyment of life, to which an employee is accustomed. Inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced by paying dearness allowance to Government employees. Since the component of inflation similarly affects all employees, and all pensioners irrespective of the date of their entry into service or retirement.

It is not per se possible to accept different level of dearness pay based on the date of retirement and it would be wholly irrelevant to determine the dearness pay to be extended to the retired employee. The Government has also failed to disclose any object which is to be achieved by fixing the cutoff date.

"27. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification (see, State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310). A valid classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment, over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.

Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized as, a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied...........

28. In the present context, it needs to be kept in mind, that dearness allowance is paid to Government employees keeping in mind the All India Consumer Price Index. Inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced by paying dearness allowance to Government employees. When a State Government chooses to treat dearness allowance as dearness pay, the objective remains the same i.e., inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced for retired employees by giving them the benefit of dearness pay. Since the component of inflation similarly affects all employees, and all pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into service or retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of dearness pay to remedy the malady of inflation.

Just like the date of entry into service (for serving employees) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the dearness allowance to be extended to serving employees, because the same has no relevance to the object sought to be achieved. Likewise, the date of retirement (for pensioners) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the dearness pay to be extended to retired employees. Truthfully, it may be difficult to imagine a valid basis of classification for remedying the malaise of inflation. In the absence of any objective, projected in this case, the question of examining the reasonableness to the object sought to be achieved, simply does not arise.

Our straying into this expressed realm of imagination, was occasioned by the fact, that the pleadings filed on behalf of the State Government, do not reveal any reason for the classification, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. The only position adopted in the pleadings filed before this Court for introducing a cut off date for differential treatment, is expressed in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, which is being extracted herewith:.

and pension with effect from 1.6.1988. As per the recommendation of the above Pay Commission, the Government had issued orders for the revision of pension and Family Pension with effect from 1.6.1988 in G.O.Ms. No. 810. Finance (PC) Department, dated 9.8.1989. It is submitted that the fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has recommended that at the end of the period of three years, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto that period could be treated as Dearness Pay. The Fourth Pay Commission revision was given with effect from 1.10.1984. Based on the above recommendation, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.371, Finance, dated 30.4.1986, read with Government letter No.124414/Pension/86-1, dt.

11.2.1987, that the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 30.9.1987 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of pensionary benefit in the case of the Govt. Servant retiring on or after 1.10.1987. The orders issued in G.O.Ms. 371, Finance dated 30.4.1985 as amended in Government letter No.70707- A/Pension /86-1, dated 8.7. 1986 read as follows:- "The Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission have among other things recommended that at the end of a period of three years the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto the period could be treated as Dearness Pay in order to ensure a reasonable pension level. The Government accept the recommendation of the Commission and direct that in the case of Government servant, who will be retiring on or after 1.10.1987, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 shall be reckoned as Dearness Pay for purpose of

pension in the case of death of a Government servant occurring on or after 1.10.1987 while in service the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of computing Family Pension."

It is therefore, evident, that the State Government has not disclosed any object which is desired to achieve by the cut off date. Most importantly, the financial constraints of the State Government, were not described as the basis/reason for the classification made in the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989.

*** 31.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand, it is not possible for us to find a valid justification for the State Government to have classified pensioners similarly situated as the appellants herein (who had retired after 1.6.1988), from those who had retired prior thereto. Inflation, in case of all such pensioners, whether retired prior to 1.6.1988 or thereafter, would have had the same effect on all of them. The purpose of adding the component of dearness pay to wages for calculating pension is to offset the effect of inflation. In our considered view, therefore, the instant classification made by the State Government in the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989 placing employees who had retired after 1.6.1988 at a disadvantage, visà-vis the employees who retired prior thereto, by allowing them a lower component of dearness pay, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, and as such, is liable to be set aside, as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

39. While holding that the cut-off date fixed by the Government is arbitrary and discriminatory the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the employee has no right to draw dearness allowance as dearness pay until the Government decided to treat the dearness allowance as dearness pay, and only the State Government has right to choose whether the dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay and it is also open

to the State Government not to treat any part of the dearness allowance as dearness pay. The State Government has the right to chose how much of dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay, however with a rider that, when the Government choose a particular component of dearness allowance would be treated as dearness pay, it cannot discriminate between a homogeneous group of pensioners while calculating the pension payable to them. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:

"29. The issue in hand needs to examine from another perspective as well. It must be clearly understood, that no employee has a right to draw dearness allowance as dearness pay till such time as the State Government decides to treat dearness allowance as dearness pay. And therefore, the State Government has the right to choose whether or not dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay. As such, it is open to the State Government not to treat any part of dearness allowance as dearness pay. In case of financial constraints, this would be the most appropriate course to be adopted. Likewise, the State Government has the right to choose how much of dearness allowance should be treated as dearness pay. As such, it is open to the State Government to treat a fraction, or even the whole of dearness allowance as dearness pay.

Based on Rule 30 of the Pension Rules, it is clear that the component of dearness pay would be added to emoluments of an employee for calculating pension. In a situation where the State Government has chosen, that a particular component of dearness allowance would be treated as dearness pay, it cannot discriminate between one set of pensioners and another, while calculating the pension payable to them (for the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph). Of course, a valid classification may justify such an action. In this case, the State Government has not come out with any justification/basis for the classification whereby one set of pensioners has been distinguished from others for differential treatment."

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made it very clear that the issue decided in the above appeals are only relating to the dearness pay and not relating to the total carry home pension of the employee. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is as follows:

"30. The instant controversy should not be misunderstood as a determination of the total carry home pension of an employee. All the Government orders referred to above, deal with the quantum of dearness allowance to be treated as dearness pay for the calculation of pension. Dearness pay is one of the many components, which go into the eventual determination of pension. Therefore, the focus in the adjudication of the present controversy must be on dearness pay, rather than on the eventual carry home pension. The relevance and purpose of treating dearness allowance as dearness pay, has been brought out in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, clearly, the object sought to be achieved by adding dearness pay to the wage of a retiree, while determining pension payable to him, is to remedy the adverse effects of inflation....."

41. That apart, on factual aspect the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that similarly placed employees retiring prior to 01.06.1988 are drawing more pension than the employee retiring after 30.06.1988 pursuant to the above said G.O.

42. Now, in order to rectify the discrimination found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned G.O., viz., G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 23.08.2013, has been issued by the State Government. The relevant portion of the G.O. reads as follows: "14. After careful consideration, the Government has decided to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by extending the benefit of the orders issued in the reference ninth read above, to those who retired on or after 1.6.1988 upto 31.12.1995 with reference to the pre-revised scales of pay (i.e. scales of pay that existed prior to 1.6.1988). Accordingly, Government direct that:

(i) the pensioners who have retired between 1.6.1988 and 31.12.1995 shall be permitted to compute average emoluments notionally for the calculation of pension

based on the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay and with reference to the Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance applicable in the pre-revised scale of pay sanctioned from time to time as Dearness Pay for the entire 10 months preceding retirement;

(ii) further, such of the pensioners who retired between 1.6.1988 and 31.12.1995 shall have the option to opt for the above formula or to retain the current pension, whichever is advantageous to them;

(iii) if the option is exercised for the pre-revised scale to calculate the pension, the excess pay and allowances and terminal benefits, if any, drawn by them in the revised scale of pay prior to their retirement shall be waived as a special case. To this effect, necessary amendment to Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will be issued separately.

15. As the revision of pension ordered above is based on the option to be exercised by the pensioners retired to their advantage, the above orders shall be eligible to all those pensioners retired between 1.6.1988 and 31.12.1995 and who are alive on the date of issue of this order. In the case of employees retired between 1.6.1988 and 31.12.1995, such retirees opting for the benefit ordered in para 14 above, the pay of such employees shall be regulated in the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay (pre - 1988 pay scale) by the pay fixing authorities notionally where the employees last served. After revising the pay of such employees the proposals for pension/ family pension revision of the above retired employees shall be forwarded by the Departmental Officers directly to the Office of the Accountant General for authorising the entitled pension. Such pensioners are also entitled for the subsequent pension revisions ordered in G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated:21.4.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated:1.6.2009 which

shall be done by the Treasury Officers/ Sub Treasury Officers/ Pension Pay Officer concerned."

43. The primordial contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, by the impugned G.O. the Government has only taken the dearness allowance as dearness pay drawn during the pre-revised scale of pay based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission recommendation, between 01.10.1988 and 31.05.1988 and not the current scale of pay drawn actually at the time of retirement i.e., 10 months preceding the date of retirement of the petitioners who retire from 01.06.1988 to 31.12.1995. The scale of pay in the pre revised scale is lower than the revised scale of pay, now the petitioners are getting lesser pension. According to them, the earlier G.O.

has permitted the dearness pay drawn during the 10 months preceding the retirement and hence the petitioners are also permitted to treat the pay actually drawn 10 months preceding the date of retirement as per Rule 31 of the Rules. The said argument of the petitioners cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, the present G.O. has been issued only to rectify the discrepancy pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation. By virtue of the impugned G.O. the Government has rectified the defect and permitted the pensioners who have retired between 01.06.1988 to 31.12.

1995 to compute average emoluments based on the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay with reference to the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance applicable in the pre-revised scale of pay sanctioned from time to time as dearness pay for the entire 10 months preceding retirement.

44. In my considered opinion, by permitting the pensioners to treat the entire dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance as dearness pay, the discrimination pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been rectified, now it is not open to the petitioners to contend that dearness allowance which is payable to them at the time of their actual retirement should be taken into consideration.

45. The impugned G.O. has also give an option to the pensioners either to opt for the present formula or retain the current pension, whichever is advantageous to them. Thus, if any of the pensioner is put in a disadvantageous position, that was also taken care of by the impugned G.O. Hence, the impugned G.O. cannot be held as arbitrary. The G.O. also makes it clear that, while calculating the pension based on the pre-revised scale of pay, the excess pay and allowance drawn by the employee in the

revised scale of pay prior to his retirement shall be waived as a special case, and those category of pensioners were also taken care of, and any excess pay and allowance received by them was also waived. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned G.O. cannot be held as illegal or irrational.

46. Looking from another angle, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it could be seen that the disputed period fall under the 5th Pay Commission period. According to the respondents, the 5th Pay Commission has extended the Central scales of pay to the State Government employees w.e.f. 01.06.1988, by which, the State Government employees pay was revised on par with the Central scales of pay by merging the dearness allowance at the rate of 608 points of All India Consumer Price Index, and on the date of retirement of the pensioners the dearness allowance drawn by them has been merged.

Now an option was given to the pensioner for fixation of pay with reference to the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission scales of pay, and other related additional dearness allowance for arriving at the revised pension or to retain the current pension whichever is advantageous to them. In the event of the petitioners getting more pension today as per the impugned G.O., the petitioners are permitted to retain the current pension. That apart, as stated earlier, in the event of any excess amount paid to them is also waived as a special case. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that by the impugned G.O. they have been put into a disadvantageous position.

47. So far as the challenge regarding the subsequent clarifications issued by the Government vide letter dated 04.02.2014 is concerned, after issuance of the impugned G.O., the Principal Accountant General has raised some queries regarding the implementation of the impugned G.O., for which, a clarification has been issued by the Government, the relevant portion reads as follows:

Sl.

No.

Points Raised Clarification Issued In para 14(II) of the G.O. first cited, it has been ordered that the pensioners retired between 01.06.1988 and 31.12.1995 shall have the option to opt for the formula stipulated in para 14(i) of the G.O.(OR) to retain the current pension whichever is advantageous to them. While implementing the G.O. most of the pensioners are eligible to fix their pension more than that they are drawing as on the date of retirement.

However, while refixing their pension on 01.01.1996 as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance (Pay Cell) dated 21.04.1998 the Accountant General pointed out that only the difference between Dearness Allowance admissible and Dearness Allowance actually drawn has to be taken. In such cases, the proposed pension as on 01.01.1996 will be less than that off original pension drawn, before refixation as per G.O.363, Finance Dt.23.08.2013.

Hence guidelines on the fixation of pension on 01.01.1996 (w.r.t the revised pension fixed as per the G.O. first cited) and for the calculation of arrears, admissibility of Dearness Allowance percentage to the pensioners from 01.06.1988 to 31.12.1995 due to the merger of Dearness Allowance in their pay, may kindly be issued.

In as much as the Dearness Allowance drawn on the date of retirement has already been merged.

The percentage merged in this regard may be excluded while refixing pension as on 1.1.96.

While doing so, if the revised pension happens to be lesser than that of the existing pension, the pension may be allowed to draw his existing pension. Due to above Dearness Allowance merger, if the amount of Dearness Allowance already drawn is found to be in excess, the same need not be taken into account (i.e.) for the period from the date of retirement upto 31.12.95 and the same may be ignored.

48. In the above clarification, the first respondent only clarified that as the dearness allowance drawn on the date of retirement has already been merged, the percentage merged may be excluded while re-fixing pension as on 01.01.1996, and it is also further clarified in the impugned Government letter that, if the revised pension happens to be lesser than that of the

existing pension, the pensioner may be allowed to draw his existing pension and due to the dearness allowance merger, if the amount of dearness allowance already drawn is found to be in excess, the same need not be taken into account. The above clarification, in my opinion, is only advantageous to the petitioners and at any rate, it cannot be held that the said clarification is overriding the impugned G.O. Hence, the contention of the petitioners in this regard also cannot be countenanced.

49. The next limb of argument of the petitioners is that the benefit of the impugned G.O. confined only to those pensioners who were alive on the date of issuance of the Government Order and it is not applicable to the family pensioners and hence it is discriminatory. On a careful perusal of the impugned G.O., it can be seen that an option is given to the pensioners either to opt for the new formula or to retain the current pension. The above option can only be exercised by the pensioners who are alive on the date of issuance of the impugned G.O. and that it cannot be extended to the legal representatives of the pensioners or family pensioners. Hence, it cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory.

50. It is true the petitioners/pensioners are to be treated as homogeneous group and they cannot be discriminated. But in the instant case there is no discrimination between the same class of pensioners and hence the contention of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted, the Government Order only rectify the defects pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation.

51. So far as the judgements relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in State of Mizoram Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association reported in 2004 6 SCC 218 relates to the fixing pay scales, where there was discrepancy in pay fixation, therefore the said judgement is not factually applicable and not relevant to decide the instant case.

52. In yet another judgement in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, there cannot be any discriminatory treatment to the equals in the matter of computation of pension. But in the instant case, I have already held there is no discrimination in fixing the pension and hence, judgement relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is also not applicable to the facts of this case.

53. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the view that the Government Order and subsequent Government letters impugned in these writ petitions cannot be held as arbitrary or irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I find no reason to set aside the impugned Government Order and the impugned Government letters. Consequently, I find no merit in these writ petitions and the writ petitions deserves only to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kk To

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PGC) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (A & E) 361, ANNA SALAI TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI- 600 018.

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PENSION) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, PANAGAL BUILDING, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15.

5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

6.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMILNADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

7.THE PENSION PAYMENT OFFICER(S), E.V.K.SAMPATH MALIGAI, CHENNAI-600006.

8.THE TREASURY OFFICER, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

W.P.Nos.4874, 7590, 7622, 15371, 15372, 15597, 15598, 18609, 18620, 18901, 18966, 19667, 20191, 22322, 22471, 23695, 23751, 24856, 24908, 25029, 25702, 25800, 26070, 26241, 26409, 27237, 27998, 29350, 30937, 30938, 30939, 30940, 30941, 30942, 33025, 33065, 33727, 35190, 35191, 35192, 35193, 35194, 35195 of 2014, 3782, 5779, 7115, 12868, 12955, 14312, 30774 and 3864 of 2015 RP(CO) SP(13/10/2020)