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
- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 279, 338 (8 counts), 337 (36 counts) of IPC and hence acquitted under
- The Madras High Court recently directed a taxpayer to file a revocation application to reinstate their GST registration, which was cancelled due to alleged suspicious transactions in their bank and portal. Here’s a breakdown of the case¹: – *Background*: The taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled, prompting them to approach the Madras High Court. – *Court’s Directive*: The court directed the taxpayer to file a revocation application along with supporting documentation. – *Procedure*: The department will issue a notice for a personal hearing within three days of receiving the application. A reasoned order will be passed within two weeks after the hearing, ensuring the taxpayer is given an opportunity to present their case. – *Precedent*: This decision aligns with previous judgments where the Madras High Court has allowed taxpayers to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under certain circumstances, such as when the taxpayer has a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application.² *Key Takeaways* – *Revocation Application*: Taxpayers can apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the GST Act. – *Supporting Documentation*: The taxpayer must provide supporting documentation to substantiate their claim. – *Opportunity for Hearing*: The department must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. – *Timeframe*: The department is required to pass a reasoned order within two weeks after the hearing. It’s essential for taxpayers to understand the procedures and timelines for revocation of cancellation of registration to ensure compliance with GST regulations.
- [12/05, 07:57] Meta AI: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy’s decision involves a case where the petitioner’s explanation was deemed reasonable and sincere, particularly due to their reliance on expert advice. The key points of the judgment are¹: – *Reasonable Explanation*: The petitioner provided a valid explanation that was accepted by the court. – *Reliance on Expert Advice*: The petitioner’s actions were guided by expert advice, which contributed to the court’s favorable view. – *Cancellation of Cancellation Order*: As a result, the court canceled the cancellation order, effectively reversing a previous decision. Without more context about the case, it’s difficult to provide further details. However, this decision suggests that the court valued the petitioner’s transparency and good faith in following expert advice. [12/05, 07:57] sekarreporter1: Case number and order copy
- Meta AI: This appears to be a legal update where: – *Lordship Justice Nakkiran*: Made a decision regarding a review application. – *Division Bench’s Observations*: The judge referenced observations made by a division bench (a panel of two or more judges) in reaching the conclusion.
- Meta AI: This appears to be a court case where: – *Contempt Petition*: A petition was filed against the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. – *Fine Imposed*: A fine of ₹5 lakhs was imposed. – *Judges*: The case was heard by MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE. – *Petitioner*: Elephant G. Rajendran, an advocate, filed the contempt petition
More
Recent Posts
- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 279, 338 (8 counts), 337 (36 counts) of IPC and hence acquitted under
- The Madras High Court recently directed a taxpayer to file a revocation application to reinstate their GST registration, which was cancelled due to alleged suspicious transactions in their bank and portal. Here’s a breakdown of the case¹: – *Background*: The taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled, prompting them to approach the Madras High Court. – *Court’s Directive*: The court directed the taxpayer to file a revocation application along with supporting documentation. – *Procedure*: The department will issue a notice for a personal hearing within three days of receiving the application. A reasoned order will be passed within two weeks after the hearing, ensuring the taxpayer is given an opportunity to present their case. – *Precedent*: This decision aligns with previous judgments where the Madras High Court has allowed taxpayers to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under certain circumstances, such as when the taxpayer has a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application.² *Key Takeaways* – *Revocation Application*: Taxpayers can apply for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the GST Act. – *Supporting Documentation*: The taxpayer must provide supporting documentation to substantiate their claim. – *Opportunity for Hearing*: The department must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. – *Timeframe*: The department is required to pass a reasoned order within two weeks after the hearing. It’s essential for taxpayers to understand the procedures and timelines for revocation of cancellation of registration to ensure compliance with GST regulations.
- [12/05, 07:57] Meta AI: Justice Krishnan Ramasamy’s decision involves a case where the petitioner’s explanation was deemed reasonable and sincere, particularly due to their reliance on expert advice. The key points of the judgment are¹: – *Reasonable Explanation*: The petitioner provided a valid explanation that was accepted by the court. – *Reliance on Expert Advice*: The petitioner’s actions were guided by expert advice, which contributed to the court’s favorable view. – *Cancellation of Cancellation Order*: As a result, the court canceled the cancellation order, effectively reversing a previous decision. Without more context about the case, it’s difficult to provide further details. However, this decision suggests that the court valued the petitioner’s transparency and good faith in following expert advice. [12/05, 07:57] sekarreporter1: Case number and order copy
- Meta AI: This appears to be a legal update where: – *Lordship Justice Nakkiran*: Made a decision regarding a review application. – *Division Bench’s Observations*: The judge referenced observations made by a division bench (a panel of two or more judges) in reaching the conclusion.
- Meta AI: This appears to be a court case where: – *Contempt Petition*: A petition was filed against the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. – *Fine Imposed*: A fine of ₹5 lakhs was imposed. – *Judges*: The case was heard by MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE. – *Petitioner*: Elephant G. Rajendran, an advocate, filed the contempt petition
