Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 1 docs
Sivaprakasam vs The Junior Engineer on 16 October, 2012

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kallakurichi Taluk Retired on 17 December, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 17.12.2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.SUGUNA

W.A. NOS. 1002 OF 2006 & 9 & 75 OF 2007

W.P. NOS. 11062 & 11634 OF 2002

W.P. NOS. 31753 & 33944 OF 2006 & 12197, 13514 & 15353 OF 2007

AND

W.A.M.P. NOS. 14917 & 15685 OF 2002

M.P. NO. 1 OF 2006

M.P. NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2007

W.A. NO. 9 OF 2007

The State of Tamil Nadu

rep. by its Secretary

Finance (Pension) Department

Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009. .. Appellant

- Vs -

Kallakurichi Taluk Retired

Officials Association

rep. by its President

Mr. N.Narayanasamy

Kallakurichi 606 202

Villupuram District. .. Respondent

W.A. No.9 of 2007 filed against the order dated 20th April, 2006, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.32045 of 2005 (T). For Appellants : Mr. P.S.Raman, AAG, assisted by

Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP in all WAs

For Petitioners : Mr. R.Singaravelan in WP 11062 & 11634/02

Mr. S.M.Subramanian in WP 31753 & 33944

of 2006, 10946/07, 12197, 13514 & 15353/07

For Respondents : Mr. P.S.Raman, AAG, assisted by

Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP in all WPs

Mr. S.M.Subramanian in WA 1002/06

Mr. V.Vijay Shankar in WA 9 & 75/07

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

In all these cases as common question of law involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In one of the writ petition, W.P. No.11062/02, the petitioner prayed to quash the decision contained in letter No.7166/Nee.Ma.5/99-3 dated 29th Sept., 1999, with further prayer to direct the authorities to pay pension taking into consideration 100% basic pay with effect from 1st Dec., 1999. In W.P. No.11634/02, prayer has been made to decide the representation relating to Dearness Allowance based on last pay drawn for the purpose of pension. In the other writ petitions, W.P. No.10946, 12197 , 13514 and 15353 of 2007, prayer has been made for direction on respondents to grant pensionary benefits by adding the entire Dearness Allowance actually drawn by the employees for the purpose of emoluments and pension and, thereby, to provide similar benefit as provided to employees, who retired upto 31st Dec., 1987, consequent upon judgment of the Administrative Tribunal implemented vide G.O. Ms. No.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1992, G.O. Ms. No.449 dated 12th Oct., 1999 and Letter No.95284 (PC) dated 3rd May, 2001. In fact, similar prayers were earlier made in other writ petitions. In one of the writ petition, W.P. No.26741/05, prayer was made to implement G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986 issued from Finance (Pension) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in its letter and spirit for the members of Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association. It was allowed by learned single Judge by order dated 23rd Feb., 2006 only on the ground that the position was not disputed by the Government Advocate. No decision having given on merit, a writ appeal has been preferred against the same by the State. Another writ petition, W.P. No.32045/05 (T) was preferred by Kallakurichi Retired Officials Association for extension of benefit granted to members of association as conferred under G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998. It having been allowed by learned single Judge vide judgment dated 20th April, 2006, another writ appeal has been preferred by the State. Similar relief was sought for by one Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department Pensioners Association in W.P. No.32089/05 (T), which was also allowed by learned single Judge vide order dated 20th April, 2006 in view of judgment passed in W.P. No.32045/05, which is also under challenge in a third writ appeal.

3. The questions that arise for determination in these cases are :-

a) Whether 1st June, 1988, a cut-off date fixed for computation of pension vide G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 is arbitrary ? b) Whether the State Government employees, who retired between 1st June, 1988 and 8th Aug., 1989, are also entitled for pension in terms with calculation prescribed vide G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998 read with G.O. Ms. No.449 dated 12th Oct., 1999 and letter No.95284 (PC) dated 3rd May, 2001 ?

4. It is not in dispute that the retired employees of the State of Tamil Nadu are entitled for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules'), which is fixed on the basis of the emoluments the employee was receiving/entitled to immediately before his retirement. The 'emoluments' includes certain allowances apart from pay under Rule 30 of the Pension Rules.

5. Instructions were issued by the State from time to time prescribing the manner and percentage of allowances for calculation of pension. On the recommendation of a Dearness Allowance Committee, by a G.O. Ms. No.115, dated 6th Feb., 1975, issued from Finance (Pension) Department, it was recommended to treat the existing rates of Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" so as to grant the benefit of pension, gratuity, etc. Subsequently, the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission recommended to treat the Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" at the end of three years for the purpose of pension. Pay revision was given effect from 1st Oct., 1984. In view of such recommendation, a G.O. Ms. No.371, dated 30th April, 1986, was issued from Finance (Pension) Department. But the recommendation was accepted and implemented only in respect of employees, who will retired on or after 1st Oct., 1987, vide letter No.70707-A/Pension/86-1 dated 8th July, 1986, which reads as follows :- "The Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has among other things recommended that at the end of a period of three years, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto that period could be treated as Dearness Pay in order to ensure a reasonable pension level. The Government accept the above recommendation of the Commissioner and direct that in the case of Government Servants who will be retiring on or after 1.10.87 the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.87 shall be reckoned as Dearness Pay for the purpose of pension. In the case of death of the Government Servants occurring on or after 1.10.87 while in service the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.87 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of computing Family pension."

6. One 'Ambasamudaram Taluk Pensioners Association' and another 'Sankarankoil Taluk Pensioners Association' preferred two applications before the then Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. Nos. 2227/92 and 4953/92 and prayed to issue direction on State to allow the benefit of 'Dearness Pay' as ordered in G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986 to those, who retired prior to 1st Oct., 1987. Such prayer was made on the ground that the pensioners are one homogeneous class and fixing of a cut-off date of 1st Oct., 1987 had no nexus with the object to achieve. Both the aforesaid applications were allowed by the State Administrative Tribunal and the cut-off date as was fixed was quashed with direction to the State to allow the benefit of Dearness Pay even to those, who retired prior to 1st Oct., 1987, apart from those, who retired between 1st Oct., 1987 and 31st May, 1988 (as 5th Pay Commission's recommendation was given effect from 1st June, 1988). Against the said order the State moved upto Supreme Court but having lost, had to issue one G.O. Ms. No.272, Finance (Pension) Department dated 15th June, 1998 allowing entire Dearness Allowance/Additional Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of calculation of pension to those, who retired between 1st April, 1979 to 31st May, 1988. At this stage it is pertinent to note that G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986, by which it was ordered to treat Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" at the end of three years had also been quashed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the entire Dearness Allowance actually drawn by employees between 1st April, 1979 to 31st May, 1988 was treated as Dearness Pay in view of the Court's order. The G.O. Ms. No.272 dated 15th June, 1998 was followed by another G.O. Ms. No.273 dated 15th June, 1998, issued from Finance (Pension) Department extending this benefit to the employees who retired during 2nd Oct., 1970 and 31st Jan., 1975. Thereby, the decision to treat Dearness Allowance as 'Dearness Pay' for the purpose of calculation of pension of the employees retired between 2nd Oct., 1970 to 31st Oct., 1975 and 1st Oct., 1979 to 30th Sept., 1987 reached finality vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998.

7. In the meantime, the 5th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission's recommendation was accepted and pay and pension were revised with effect from 1st June, 1988 by G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, issued from Finance (Pension) Department. It was directed to compute the pensionary benefits of employees, who retired/retiring on or after 1st June, 1988 by adding Dearness Pay along with the pay at the following percentage rates :-

Pay Range

(1)

Rate of Dearness Pay

(2)

(i)

Upto Rs.3,500

13 per cent of pay

(ii)

Above Rs.3,500 but not exceeding Rs.6,000

9 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.455

(iii)

Above Rs.6,000

8 per cent of pay subject to minimum of Rs.540

The aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, was challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos.32045/05 (T) and 32089/05 (T). By impugned orders, both dated 20th April, 2006, learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions, which is under challenge in two of the present writ appeals.

8. Before the writ court as also this Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents in writ appeals) submitted that the action of the respondents is contrary to Rule 13 of the Pension Rules, which stipulates fixation of pension on the basis of ten months average pay last drawn by a Government Servant. Further, according to them, the action of the State in not taking into account of the entire Dearness Allowance for the purpose of pension is illegal and contrary to the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the Supreme Court and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the slab system, which was introduced for computation of pension depending on the pay scale, amounts to taking away the benefits earlier granted, which causes financial loss to the retired employees retiring on or after 1st June, 1988. No reason has been shown to deny the benefits to those who retired between 1st June, 1988 till 31st Dec., 1988 and, thereby, it was alleged that the action of the State in discriminating pensioners is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, according to them, there is no rational or logic in fixing the cut-off date as 1st June, 1988 and as the retired employees form a single homogeneous class, no discrimination can be made. Before learned single Judge, counsel for the State, while relied on different circulars and Government Orders issued from time to time, submitted that since Pay Commission nowhere recognised merger of Dearness Allowance to the pensioners, Government had decided not to give the benefits to the pensioners and there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.

9. Learned single Judge, by impugned judgment dated 20th April, 2006, noticed the following facts :- The Government had appointed a D.A. Committee for making recommendation and to fix Dearness Allowance for the pensioners. The said Committee submitted its report, which the Government accepted and implemented vide G.O. Ms. No.115 dated 6th Feb., 1979. In the said G.O., it is clearly stated that the Government's intention is that all the Government Servants retiring on or after 1st Feb., 1975, should derive the full benefit of the merger of the existing Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay and directed that the Dearness Allowance actually drawn by Government Servant retiring on or after 1st Feb., 1975, during the ten months prior to their retiring, may be treated as pay for calculating their pension. The said benefit was restricted to a class of employees, which was held illegal by the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed to provide such benefit as no discrimination could be made between pensioners. Learned single Judge, while observed that the 'Dearness Allowance' is fixed based on the price index and is payable not only to persons in service, but also to the pensioners, held that Dearness Allowance should be treated as pay for the purpose of pension.

10. Similar plea has been taken by the parties before us as was taken before learned single Judge. Apart from other submissions, learned Addl. Advocate General, while referred to the formula for computing pension, as contained in G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, submitted that if G.O. Ms. Nos. 272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998, is made applicable to those retired after 1st June, 1988, it will create anomaly and huge gap between those retired prior to 1st June, 1988 and those who retired thereafter, which will violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. For determination of the issues, it is desirable to notice the judgment passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, as affirmed by Supreme Court apart from the relevant G.Os., as issued by the State from time to time and referred to above. Before the Tribunal, the members of different pensioners associations challenged the cut-off date of 1st Oct., 1987 as was fixed for computing pension by G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 30th April, 1986 and the consequential orders. The State Government having failed to explain the relevancy of such cut-off date fixed therein, the Tribunal held the cut-off date as arbitrary and illegal. Apart from Supreme Court decisions relied upon for coming to such conclusion the relevant facts were noticed to find out as to how the Dearness Allowance was clubbed with the pay for computing pension.

12. It will be evident from the judgment dated 20th April, 2006, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.32045/05 as followed in the other case that no argument was advanced nor any determination has been made on the issue whether the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988 fixed vide G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 is arbitrary. In fact, no suggestion was made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents to the writ appeals as to why the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988 should be held arbitrary. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State brought to the notice of the court the relevancy of the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988, as the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was accepted and given effect from 1st June, 1988.

13. It will be evident from G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1988 that the Government had carefully examined the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission's recommendation in the light of the decision to grant fitment of pay to serving employees at 600 points of All India Consumer Price Index level. Accordingly, the Government enhanced the minimum pension and family pension to Rs.375/=. As the revised formula for calculation of family pension recommended by the 5th Pay Commission would result in reduction of family pension adversely affecting those already retired and will retire in the revised scales of pay, the existing pattern of calculation of family pension was allowed to be continued.

14. Relevancy of the cut-off date is also reflected from para-3 of G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989, which is quoted hereunder :- "3. Based on the recommendations of the fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, employees retiring on or after 1st October, 1987 were permitted computation of pensionary benefits treating the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance at 687 points paid upto 1st October, 1987 as "Dearness Pay". As the fixation of pay in the revised scales of pay recommended by the Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has been made by merging dearness allowance paid upto 608 points of all India Consumer Price Index, those employees retired/retiring after drawal of revised pay would be getting lesser emoluments comprising of pension plus dearness allowance compared to that of those retired under the pre-revised scales of pay. The Government have examined this anomalous situation and decided to grant "Dearness Pay". They accordingly direct that pensionary benefits of employees retired/retiring on or after 1st June, 1988 be computed by adding "Dearness Pay" along with pay at the following percentage rates :-

Pay Range

(1)

Rate of Dearness Pay

(2)

(i)

Upto Rs.3,500

13 per cent of pay

(ii)

Above Rs.3,500 but not exceeding Rs.6,000

9 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.455

(iii)

Above Rs.6,000

8 per cent of pay subject to minimum of Rs.540

15. In the judgment passed by learned single Judge, while referring the submission of the counsel for the writ petitioners, Rule 13 has been referred. We feel it is a mistake and it should be Rule 30 (Emoluments), as Rule 13 deals with counting of service as apprentice, which has nothing to do with the present case. We have noticed that Rule 30 relates to emoluments for the purpose of calculating pension, which includes pay and other allowance, as quoted hereunder :- "30. Emoluments  In the rules, unless the context otherwise requires, --

(1) Emoluments mean and include --

(i) pay, other than special pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity (including temporary capacity under emergency provisions) or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; (ii) special pay, dearness pay and personal pay; and

(iii) any other remuneration which may be specially claused as emoluments by the Government."

From the aforesaid provision it will be evident that apart from pay, special pay, "Dearness Pay" and personal pay are also accounted, if paid to one or other employee. The said scheme (Rule 30) for computation of pension is applicable to all the employees irrespective of the date on which he may retire, but all the employees cannot claim for same quantum of pension, as it is dependant on pay as was paid to one or other employee and the special pay or personal pay or dearness pay if allowed. Thus, though retired employees form one class of homogeneous group for the purpose of determination of pension under Rule 30, but quantum of their pension may vary, being dependant on the pay, etc.

16. No employee has a right to draw the Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" till the State Government decides to treat such Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for its employees. Though it is open to the State Government to treat 'Dearness Allowance' or a part of it as 'Dearness Pay' for the purpose of computation of pension, it is also open to the State Government not to treat such Dearness Allowance at all as Dearness Pay for the purpose of computation of pay. For example, Dearness Allowance was never treated as Dearness Pay. It is only in the year 1974, the State Government, vide G.O. Ms. No.1009, Finance, dated 17th July, 1974, constituted a D.A. Committee to examine and report the extent to which it will be proper to reckon "a portion of Dearness Allowance" being paid as 'Dearness Pay' so as to benefit the employees of the State Government in respect of pensionary benefits. (Emphasis Added). The recommendation was accepted vide G.O. Ms. No.115 dated 6th Feb., 1975 and only part of the Dearness Allowance was treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of calculation of pension. Though "part of Dearness Allowance" was treated as full "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of pension by aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.115 dated 6th Feb., 1975, but "Dearness Allowance" was never treated as "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of computation of pay. For the first time, recently, 'a part of Dearness Allowance' has been treated as "Dearness Pay" for the purpose of determination of pay with effect from January, 2006. In this background, we are of the view that it is for the employer to decide whether 'Dearness Allowance' could be treated as 'Dearness Pay' and it is also open to such employer to determine whether 'a part of the Dearness Allowance' can be treated as full 'Dearness Pay' for the purpose of computing pension.

17. We have already noticed that 1st June, 1988, the cut-off date had a nexus, pay of the employees having been revised from the said date pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. It was brought to our notice by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988, they were getting salary in the unrevised scales of pay. On the other hand, those who retired on or after 1st June, 1988, for the purpose of calculation of pay, their pay was calculated in the revised scale, which is much higher than the unrevised scales of pay. We have also noticed the All India Consumer Price Index, as referred to in G.O. Ms. No.810 dated 9th Aug., 1989 and highlighted by the learned Addl. Advocate General. It appears that on the basis of All India Consumer Price Index, the Dearness Allowance was 687 points prior to 1st June, 1988. The 5th Pay Commission recommended, as accepted by the State Government, to merge Dearness Allowance upto 608 points of All India Consumer Price Index towards revised pay. Thus, those who were in service and retired on or after 1st June, 1988, in their case, along with the pay in the old scale, Dearness Allowance to the extent of 608 points of All India Consumer Price Index had already been included. It is only the rest part of the Dearness Allowance, i.e., about 79 points, which was not included with the pay of those, who retired on or after 1st June, 1988. As 79 points for the purpose of slab comes to 13% for those getting pay range upto Rs.3,500/=, 9% for those who were getting pay range between Rs.3,500 to Rs.6,000/= and 8% for those who were getting pay range above Rs.6,000/=, it was decided to add only such percentage of Dearness Allowance as "Dearness Pay" for computation of pension.

18. Learned Addl. Advocate General, while submitted that the pension of those, who retired in the unrevised scales of pay, prior to 1st June, 1988 or those who retired in the revised scales of pay on or after 1st June, 1988 will be the same, this fact was disputed by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the parties circulated their respective calculations showing working sheet of pension as admissible to a class of employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 in the unrevised scales of pay and those similarly situated and retired after 1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. Charts are varying. While in the chart submitted by the State Government it has been shown that those who retired after 1st June, 1988 will be getting a little bit higher than those who retired prior to 1st June, 1988, the calculation submitted by individual parties shows that those who retired just prior to 1st June, 1988 may get a little higher emoluments than those who retired after 1st June, 1988. It is for the said reason, we also sought for opinion from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, who has submitted its calculation chart, as circulated between the parties and quoted hereunder :- "As per instructions of the Honourable High Court of Madras in WP 11634/02, the working sheets submitted by both the Government and the petitioners in WA 1002 of 2006 have been scrutinized and the following observations are made. A. Government Working Sheet :

Details of the Case

As it is

As it should be

Designation : Tahsildar

Date of Retirement : 31.05.1988

Scale of Pay : Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950

Pay Rs.1880

Rs.1387

Rs.1573*

Designation : Tahsildar

Date of Retirement : After 01.06.1988

Scale of Pay : Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200

Pay Rs.2300

Rs.1534

Rs.1534

* If G.O.271/579 revision is applied in this case, then the revised pension from 1.6.88 works out to Rs.2000 + 18% DA.

B. Petitioners Working Sheet : Out of nine illustrations, five cases are found to be correct and in four cases the correct calculations are given below : Details of the Case

As it is

As it should be

Designation : Deputy Collector ('A')

Date of Retirement : 30.04.1988

Scale of Pay : Rs.1340-75-1715-90-2435

Pay Rs.2435

Rs.2433

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.6402

(From 1.1.96)

Rs.2589

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.6808

(From 1.1.96)

Designation : Block Development Officer ('A')

Date of Retirement : 31.01.1988

Scale of Pay : Rs.1045-45-1450-65-1675

Pay Rs.1515

Rs.849

(From 1.2.88)

Rs.1427

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.4303

(From 1.1.96)

Rs.947

(From 1.2.88)

Rs.1592

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.4796

(From 1.1.96)

Designation : Secondary Grade Teacher ('A') (Sel. Grade)

Date of Retirement : 31.12.1987

Scale of Pay : Rs.

Pay Rs.820/-

Rs.472

(From 1.1.88)

Rs.815

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.2480

(From 1.1.96)

Rs.513

(From 1.2.88)

Rs.890

(From 1.6.88)

Rs.2703

(From 1.1.96)

Designation : Tahsildar ('B')

Date of Retirement : 31.03.90

Scale of Pay : Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950

Pay : Rs.2120 from 1.1.89

Rs.2180/- from 1.1.90

Rs.1232

(From 1.4.90)

Rs.3723

(From 1.1.96)

Rs.1209

(From 1.4.90)

Rs.3654

(From 1.1.96)

It is certified that subject to the observations made supra the illustrative calculations are in order. Branch Officer/Pension 30"

From the aforesaid chart it appears that those who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 or after 30th June, 1988 from similar post, they will get almost similar quantum of pension. It is not for us to calculate the emoluments or pension to which one or other retired employee is entitled to under the law. If there is a wrong calculation, it is always open to such employee to bring it to the notice of the competent authority or the Accountant General of the State.

19. In the present case, we are concerned with the question whether the cut-off date, 1st June, 1988, has any nexus or is arbitrary. This question, we have already answered, the State Government having shown its nexus with the object to achieve. So far as the other issue is concerned, we have already noticed the above submission made by learned Addl. Advocate General and discussed as to why 13% or 9% or 8% of the Dearness Allowance was ordered to be taken into consideration for Dearness Pay for computation of emoluments and pension. It has already been noticed that those who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 were getting lesser pay than those, who retired on or after 1st June, 1988. In that background, if those retired in the revised scale of pay are provided with the same percentage of Dearness Allowance as per G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998, it will create anomaly. In view of the aforesaid fact, while we are of the opinion that grant of 'Dearness Pay' to all the retired employees in terms with G.O. Ms. Nos.272 and 273, both dated 15th June, 1998, will discriminate two sets of retired employees, i.e., those who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 and those who retired after the said date, we hold that the aforesaid two Government Orders cannot be implemented in respect to those, who retired from service on or after 1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. We, accordingly, uphold the the cut-off date of 1st June, 1988, as prescribed in the impugned order. The second question is, thus, answered against the writ petitioners.

20. Learned single Judge having failed to notice the relevancy of the cut-off date and having failed to notice the relevant issues as discussed above, the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rd Feb., 2006, passed in W.P. No. 26741/05 and the orders dated 20th April, 2006, passed in W.P. Nos.32045 and 32089/06 (T) cannot be upheld. They are, accordingly, set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners having no merit are fit to be rejected. We, accordingly, dismiss all the writ petitions and allow all the writ appeals. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. But, there shall be no order as to costs.

(S.J.M.J.) (K.S.A.J.)

17.12.2007

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

GLN

To

The Secretary

Finance (Pension) Department

Government of Tamil Nadu

Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009.

S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

AND

K.SUGUNA, J.

GLN

PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN

W.A. NO. 1002 OF 2006

W.A. NOS. 9 & 75 OF 2007

W.P. NOS. 11062 & 11634/2002

W.P. NOS. 31753 & 33944 /2006

& 12197, 13514 & 15353 OF 2007

Pronounced on

17.12.2007