Follow:
- Next story Chennai: The Madras high court has held that those government servants /employees, who are freshly appointed on or after April 1, 2003, are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O dated August 6, 2003. The Full Bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah, P.T.Asha and C.Saravanan gave the ruling while answering the reference made to it on a batch of petitions and appeals from individual employees and state government. The Full bench said such reference came to be made by the division bench on noticing that there were two conflicting decisions rendered by the division benches of this court. In one of the judgments, it was held that persons who were absorbed and/or regularized to service after April 1, 2003 were not entitled to count half of the past service rendered by them for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits along with the service rendered by them after regularization. Another division bench held that such persons, whose service came to be regularized after April 1, 2003 were entitled and/or eligible to count half of the services rendered by them on daily wage basis prior to their regularization, for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. Thus, this contrary view taken by two division bench of this court has led to the present reference to this Full bench, the Full bench added. The Full Bench held that those government servants/employees appointed prior to April 1, 2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularized before April 1, 2003, half of service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits, the Full Bench added. The Full Bench said those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and absorbed into regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension. Those government servants, who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before April 1, 2003 but were absorbed in regular service after April 1, 2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension, the Full Bench added.
- Previous story *SC Quashes All Criminal Cases Against Salman Khan In Connection With Movie ‘Loveratri’ [Read Order]* https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/loveratri-sc-quashes-cases-against-salman-khan-150394
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
More
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
