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

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204 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...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags