Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THEGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus K. JA YARAMAN

Decided
3 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 848 · 1997 INSC 92

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 848, margin E

Unnumbered paragraph

When the respondent failed to be represented pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, we requested the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign the counsel. Accordingly, Smt. K. Sarda Devi has been assigned the case.

p. 848, margin F

Unnumbered paragraph

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on April 22, 1996 in O.A. No. 159/90. The admitted facts are that the respondent was initially appointed in a contin-. gent establishment on November 20, 1942 and was later appointecfO"n regular basis as an Attendant on February 18, 1945. He tendered resignation by letter dated June 6, 1970 claiming that he had right to take voluntary retirement as he had put in 25 years of service. The same was accepted by the Government w.e.f. March 19, 1970. As per the pre-existing rules, the Government servant was required to put in 30 years of quaHfying service for pensionary benefits. Rules came to be amended by G.O. Ms. No. 1537 which came to be effective from November 13, 1972. It was stated therein that the . Government may, by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or thre_e months pay and allowances in Heu of such notice, after he has attained the age of fifty years or after he has completed twenty five years of quaHfying service retire any Government servant. Any Government servant who has attained the age of 50 years or who has completed 25 years of qualifying service may also Hkewise retire from service l:Jy giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority. This rule has come into force, as stated earlier, w.e.f. November 13, 1972. The respondent voluntarily retired w.e.f. March 19, 1970 and since then, he has already joined another institution. The view of the Tribunal that he is entitled to pension on completing 25 years of qualifying service applying the aforesaid G.O., is clearly illegal. It cannot be given retrospective effect. However, since the respondent had rendered two years of temporary service and there is a short-fall of three years for computing the pension, Government is at Hberty and is accordingly directed to consider his case whether he is eligible in accordance with appropriate procedure to pensionary benefits or relaxation may be given and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

pp. 848–849, margin G

Unnumbered paragraph

The appeal is accordmgly disposed of. No costs .. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 849, margin E