Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 13 - May 19, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193

G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195

A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199

M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200

K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201

Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202

Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203

P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204

REPORT

Deductions Made Under GPF Scheme Do Not Automatically Entitle Employees To Pension Benefits: Madras High Court

Case Name: Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, held that Employees are not automatically entitled to pension benefits based on deductions made under the GPF scheme.

The court observed that while the GPF Scheme was in place, it did not included provisions for pension benefits. The court emphasized that deductions made under the GPF Scheme do not automatically entitle employees to pension benefits. The court acknowledged that any decision regarding the extension of pension benefits to employees of the respondent organization required approval from the government.

The court relied on the W.P.No.1264 of 2019 wherein the Division bench of Madras High Court held that the employees of Autonomous Bodies cannot claim pension unless there is a specific pension scheme in place, and requests for a pension scheme similar to the government's do not grant them the same rights as government employees.

Employees Need To Fulfil Required Years Of Service and Practical Experience as per Rules for Promotion: Madras High Court

Case Name: G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., held that in order to qualify for promotion, employees must satisfy the necessary practical experience and the required number of years of service.

The court observed that petitioner was appointed as a Senior Superintendent as a fresh entrant on May 30, 2015, as a result, he had not completed the required five years of service in this position, as mandated by Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules, to be eligible for promotion to Assistant Manager (Legal). The court observed that petitioner lacked the necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, which was a requirement for the Assistant Manager (Legal) position.

The court found that the seniority list prepared by the corporation was in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The court further observed that the promotions within the TSTC were based on merit and eligibility criteria, including the completion of the requisite years of service and possession of necessary qualifications in compliance with the Common Service Rules.

Permission For Temple's Festival Can't Be Denied On Grounds Of Model Code Of Conduct: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Kesavan v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 195

The Madras High Court recently noted that the authorities could not deny permission to conduct a temple festival on the grounds of the existence of a Model Code of Conduct.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of permission and to grant permission to conduct a music and dance program at night during the temple festival. The authorities had denied permission given the model code of conduct existing due to the Assembly Elections.

The court however noted that the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu had concluded and the polling was already over. The court was also not in favor of denying permission because of the Model Code of Conduct.

Archaeological Dept Custodian Of Country's Archaeological Monuments, Has Incumbent Duty To Protect Them: Madras High Court

Case Title: A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

The Madras High Court had recently observed that the Archaeological Department had an incumbent duty to maintain the archaeological monuments in the State and should not do acts that would endanger the archaeological monuments.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was hearing a plea against the construction of a toilet and cafeteria near the Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar Temple.

Employees Cannot Be Denied Pensionary Benefits Due To Administrative Delays, Not Attributable To Them: Madras High Court

Case Name: S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department

Citation:2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Battu Devanand, while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department, held that pensionary benefits cannot be denied to employees on the basis of administrative delays that are not attributable to the employees themselves.

The court observed that it was important to consider the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders, for determining pension scheme eligibility. The court relied on the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, where they have emphasized the importance of considering the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders or joining duty, for determining pension scheme eligibility.

Unjustified To Recover From Employees Any Excess Payment, In Case Of Inordinate Delay In Initiating The Recovery: Madras High Court

Case Name: V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

A Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that it would be unjustified to recover from employees any excess payment made to them by mistake and where there had been inordinate delay in initiating the recovery.

The court relied on the case of State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein the Supreme Court set aside the proceedings of recovery observing that the recovery would be impermissible in law from employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery or when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

Seniority of Transferred Employee In Region Counted From Transfer Date, Not From Date Of Joining: Madras High Court

Case Name : C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199

A single bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, held that when an employee changes regions and accepts the lowest administrative rank, their seniority in the transferred region is counted from the transfer date, not the original date of entry into service.

The court looked at the eligibility of the petitioner for the position of “Superintendent (Legal)” based on the Common Service Rules as he hadn't worked as “Superintendent (Admin and Accounts)” neither held positions relevant for consideration. Despite claiming since 1992, the petitioner lacked eligibility or rights for consideration or promotion as per the rules. Even if irregularities existed in appointments to the post, the petitioner lacked the standing to object or make claims. Thus, the court deemed the petitioner's claim baseless and rejected it.

Take Criminal Action Against Those Furnishing False Information For Obtaining Legal Heirship Certificate: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Marannan v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 200

The Madras High Court has directed the revenue authorities to take criminal action against persons furnishing false information to get a legal heirship certificate.

Justice SM Subramanian added that if the authorities failed to take action against such persons, the competent authority shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the officers for dereliction of duty.

The court noted that a legal heirship certificate had civil consequences and suppression of facts while seeking a legal heirship certificate would lead to infringement of the civil rights of persons. The court thus noted that those persons who suppressed material facts were liable to be prosecuted under criminal law.

Employer Should Not Suspend Employee On Verge Of Retirement, Will Not Be In Public Interest: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: K Saravanan v The Joint Director of School Education and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201

The Madras High Court has reiterated that an employer cannot suspend an employee on the date of his retirement or at the verge of his retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of considerable time.

Justice RN Manjula observed that suspending the employee and issuing a charge memo after a considerable time would not only be a mockery but would also cause inconvenience to the Government and discourage the morale of the Government employees who rendered their services till the attainment of superannuation.

The court observed that the Department's delayed action was in complete contradiction to its own Government orders which would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings including the charge memo. The court added that allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would only be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The court added that there could not be any other mental agony to an employee than placing him under suspension exactly on the date of superannuation.

Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment Is To Reduce Immediate Financial Hardship Faced By Employees' Family Upon Their Death: Madras High Court

Case Name: Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202

A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, held that upon the death of the employee, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to reduce the immediate financial hardship faced by their family.

The court observed that the deceased employee had been granted temporary status before his death, indicating some level of recognition by the authorities. This fact was considered relevant to the eligibility of the family for compassionate appointment.

The court noted that the petitioners had failed to comply with previous tribunal orders directing them to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment. The court deemed this non-compliance as contemptuous and indicated that the petitioners did not have the right to reject the deceased employee for regularization.

Government's Order To Revise Pay Scale On Recommendations Of Expert Committee Can't Be Refused By Employer On Grounds Of Disparity In Employees' Qualifications: Madras High Court

Case Name: Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 203

A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Appeal in the case of Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation Ltd. vs. Tantea Employees' Federation, held that order passed by the Government to revise the pay scale on recommendations of an expert committee cannot be refused by the employer on grounds of disparity in employees' qualifications.

The court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the disparity in qualifications. It emphasized that when the government accepted the recommendations of an expert committee and issued a subsequent order rectifying anomalies, such orders modified the original government order accepting the recommendations of the pay commission. Therefore, the appellant could not refuse to implement the subsequent order based on qualification differences. The court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the order and upheld it.

'Act Of High Religious Worship': Madras High Court Allows Ritual Of Devotee Rolling Over Plaintain Leaves On Which Food Was Eaten By Others

Case Title: P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204

The Madras High Court recently observed that if the right to privacy includes one's sexual and gender orientation, it would also include one's spiritual orientation and thus allow a person to perform such religious practices as one deemed fit.

Justice GR Swaminathan thus observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual where one rolls over the plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. The court noted that his right to perform the practice was protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.

Looking into the earlier judicial pronouncements regarding religious practices, the court said that the petitioner had a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him when he believed that such an act would confer a spiritual benefit on him.

The court noted that the matter was also covered by the right to privacy. The court added that one's personal choices governing the way of life were intrinsic to privacy and that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place.