Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sb.Chellan v. The District Collector - WRIT PETITION (MD) No.10530 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 2779 (23 August 2007)


DATED : 23/08/2007



WRIT PETITION (MD) No.10530 of 2006

Sb.Chellan .. Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector,

Sivaganga District.

2.The Sub Collector,


3.The Government Tahsildar,

Thiruppatur Taluk. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.9.2006 and direct the respondents to prepare the petitioner's pension proposals.

For petitioner ... Mr. M.Mohanasundaram For respondents ... Mrs.V.Chellammal, Special Government Pleader :ORDER

The petitioner in the Writ Petition seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 19.9.2006 and to send his pension proposals.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Village Assistant (Thalayari) on 19.3.1956 at Kumavapettai Group now renamed as Sirugoodalpatty Group in Thiruppatur Taluk, Sivaganga District. According to him, he completed 43 years of service and retired on 31.7.1999. The stand of the petitioner was that by G.O.(3D)No.9 dated 28.2.2006, pensionary benefits were sanctioned to the Village Assistants and as per the said G.O., he is entitled to get pension.

3. But the said G.O. applies to grant pension to Village Assistants with effect from 1.6.1995, which was the date on which the Village Assistants in the Revenue Department were brought under regular establishment but there is no provision to give pension to the service rendered before the date on which the service was brought on regular service.

4. However, in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner's representation dated 19.9.2006 was addressed to the first and third respondents to be considered.

5. Pursuant to the interim order passed on 1.12.2006 in the very same Writ Petition by which the District Collector was directed to explain as to why the petitioner's pension was not sanctioned for all these years and to appear in person. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner had worked as a part-time Village Assistant (Thalayari) from 19.3.1956 to 31.5.1995 and only from 1.6.1995 (the date on which Village Assistants were brought under regular establishment) till 31.7.1999, he had worked as full time Village Assistant. As per the pension rules prescribed, pension will apply only to those who had worked on full time service and rendered a qualified service of 10 years. If a Village Assistant's qualified service is less than 10 years but above 5 years, he is eligible for a special pension of Rs.150/- per month. But, in the case of the petitioner, his service was only for four years and two months on regular basis. Therefore, the pension rules will not apply to him.

6. Under these circumstances, accepting the counter affidavit, it has to be held that the petitioner has no case on merits and the Writ Petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. No costs. asvm


1.The District Collector,

Sivaganga District.

2.The Sub Collector,


3.The Government Tahsildar,

Thiruppatur Taluk.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.