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
- Removal of. encroachments S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 4677/1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (MATTER IS LISTED ONLY FOR DIRECTIONS ONLY NAMES OF FOLLOWING ADVOCATES MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE LIST :MR. S GURU KRISHNA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.) MS. ANITHA SHENOY, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)MR. A.D.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)PETITIONER-IN-PERSON MR. G.S. MAKKER,MR. AMRISH KUMAR,MR. PRAVEEN SWARUP, MR. NISHIT AGRAWAL,MR. CHIRAG M. SHROFF, ADVOCATES ) Date : 30-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Aarti
- The Court while invoking the principles of Karma granted relief to the Petitioner-cop. “In the principles of Karma the “Sanchita Karma” (entire karma) is apportioned as “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma) and punishment is imposed to undergo only for the “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma).”, the bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed. – full order THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY (MD).No.19529 of 2022and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.14256 and 14257 of 2022 R.Srimurugan … Petitioner
- Quoting a Supreme Court order, Justice K Murali Shankar ruled last month that the position of law is well settled and that there is no bar or prohibition of initiating simultaneous proceedings claiming maintenance under different Acts, but while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the subsequent proceedings shall take into account the award made in the previous proceedings.
- Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Sandipkumar More quashed the lower court’s order granting the right to residence to a woman including access to amenities in the house.
- A bench of justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian set aside an order of the Madurai Bench of Madras HC order which reduced the compensation granted to appellants from Rs 4,29,37,700 to Rs 57,90,000.
More
Recent Posts
- Removal of. encroachments S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 4677/1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (MATTER IS LISTED ONLY FOR DIRECTIONS ONLY NAMES OF FOLLOWING ADVOCATES MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE LIST :MR. S GURU KRISHNA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.) MS. ANITHA SHENOY, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)MR. A.D.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE (A.C.)PETITIONER-IN-PERSON MR. G.S. MAKKER,MR. AMRISH KUMAR,MR. PRAVEEN SWARUP, MR. NISHIT AGRAWAL,MR. CHIRAG M. SHROFF, ADVOCATES ) Date : 30-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Aarti
- The Court while invoking the principles of Karma granted relief to the Petitioner-cop. “In the principles of Karma the “Sanchita Karma” (entire karma) is apportioned as “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma) and punishment is imposed to undergo only for the “Prarabdha Karma” (portion of the karma).”, the bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed. – full order THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY (MD).No.19529 of 2022and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.14256 and 14257 of 2022 R.Srimurugan … Petitioner
- Quoting a Supreme Court order, Justice K Murali Shankar ruled last month that the position of law is well settled and that there is no bar or prohibition of initiating simultaneous proceedings claiming maintenance under different Acts, but while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the subsequent proceedings shall take into account the award made in the previous proceedings.
- Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Sandipkumar More quashed the lower court’s order granting the right to residence to a woman including access to amenities in the house.
- A bench of justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian set aside an order of the Madurai Bench of Madras HC order which reduced the compensation granted to appellants from Rs 4,29,37,700 to Rs 57,90,000.
