Anvar Ali v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Anvar Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Secretariat, Chennai 2.The Additional Finance Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 3.The District Collector Salem District 4.The Project Director Rural Development Salem District 5.The Assistant Director of Panchayat Salem District ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent's impugned G.O.(U).No.421, Rural Development and 1/6

Panchayat (Pa.Aa-5) Department, dated 25.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to regularize service of the petitioner from 09.07.1990 and sanction all the pension benefit and retirement benefit to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : M/s.Sreemagal G.R.

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sasikumar Government Advocate

O R D E R

By consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent's impugned G.O.(U).No.421, Rural Development and Panchayat (Pa.Aa-5) Department, dated 25.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to regularize service of the petitioner from 09.07.1990 and sanction all the pension benefit and retirement benefit to the petitioner. 2/6

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was initially appointed as Makkal Nalapaniyalar by the 3rd respondent on 09.07.1990 and subsequently, he was promoted as Office Assistant on 18.02.2009, therefore, his service from 1990 has to be taken into consideration and he must be given pension and other entitlements.

5. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would intervene and invite the attention of this Court about the order of the District Collector, Salem District, dated 18.02.2009, wherein the petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant at Sangagiri Panchayat Union and it has been categorically mentioned in Clause-6 that he will be brought under Contributory Pension Scheme. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance with respect to the appointment letter, he would have objected at that point of time itself. Now, that after lapse of more than 15 years, he cannot turnaround and would state that he is entitled for a old pension scheme. I am in full agreement with the above submission. 3/6

6. Therefore, this Court do not find any merits in the present writ petition. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 02.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order dm 4/6

To 1.The Additional Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Secretariat, Chennai 2.The Additional Finance Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Chennai 3.The District Collector Salem District 4.The Project Director Rural Development Salem District 5.The Assistant Director of Panchayat Salem District 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dm 02.07.2025 6/6