Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 930 (MAD)

C. Thulasingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-15

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. The issue lies in a very narrow compass. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.1996. The post which he held in the Government is not relevant. Pursuant to the recommendations of the V Pay Commission, pension was revised vide G.O.Ms.No.174, Finance Department, dated 21.04.1998, with effect from 01.01.1996. This Government Order categorized the retirees into three categories and the same are as follows: "a) Retirees before 01.01.1996 b) Retirees between 01.01.1996 and 30.06.1996 c) After 01.07.1996" 3. Different formulas were adopted for calculation of pension for the above said three categories. The aforesaid formula worked out disadvantageously to the retirees who retired between 01.01.1996 and 30.06.1996. They questioned the same before this Court in W.P.No.13333 of 2000. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 09.03.2004, with a direction to the respondents therein, to grant the same rate of pension to the petitioners therein, as was granted to the employees, who retired before 01.01.1996 or after 01.07.1996. 4. It is also admitted that the writ appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.06.2007. 5. In those circumstances, options were called for from the retirees, who retired between 01.01.1996 and 30.06.1996 for fixing their pension, either at the rate granted to the retirees before 01.01.1996 or after 01.07.1996. The petitioner exercised the option adopting the methodology applicable to those who retired after 01.07.1996. Accordingly, pension was worked out and arrears were also paid and the same is not in dispute. 6. In view of the same, I am of the view that nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is some arithmetic mistake in calculating arrears and fixation of pension. In my view, if there is any arithmetic mistake, the same can be rectified, if the petitioner makes a representation to the third respondent, explaining the arithmetic mistake and the third respondent would consider the same on merits. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is some arithmetic mistake in calculating arrears and fixation of pension. In my view, if there is any arithmetic mistake, the same can be rectified, if the petitioner makes a representation to the third respondent, explaining the arithmetic mistake and the third respondent would consider the same on merits. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the third respondent explaining the error crept in, in calculating the arrears and fixation of pension and the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. No costs.