W.P.No.33688 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDERS RESERVED ON : 31.01.2025 ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.No.33688 of 2013 Tamilnadu State Civil Services Officers (Retired) Association, No.46, Adappanvayal 3rd Street, Pudukottai Town-622 002, Rep., by its General Secretary, Singaram Munirathinam ... Petitioner Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceedings of the respondent in its G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and quash Para 2(ii)(d) thereof insofar as it grants only 40% fitment weightage to retirees before 01.01.2006 and to consequently direct the respondent to fix the pension of the pre 01.01.2006 retirees on par with post 01.01.2006 retirees by allowing them revised pension at 50% of the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33688 of 2013 Grade Pay in the light of the OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 28.01.2013 and to revise the pension to the members of the petitioner association and pay the same along with arrears from 01.01.2006. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayshankar For Respondent : Mr.V.Bharanidaran Additional Government Pleader ORDER This matter was earlier heard by this Court on 31.01.2025 and thereafter, it was listed for clarification on 11th, 17th, 19th and finally on 27th March, 2025. Accordingly, the following order is being passed. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Association seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and quash Para 2(ii)(d) thereof insofar as it grants only 40% fitment weightage to retirees before 01.01.2006 and to consequently direct the respondent to fix the pension of the pre 01.01.2006 retirees on par with post 01.01.2006 retirees by allowing them revised pension at 50% of the Grade Pay in the light of the OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33688 of 2013 28.01.2013 and to revise the pension to the members of the petitioner association and pay the same along with arrears from 01.01.2006. 3. 3. Though it was brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.V.Bharanidaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, that the very same impugned order has been put to challenge before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17026 of 2015 and batch and the said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by an order dated 26.07.2017, considering the submission made by Mr.V.Vijayshankar, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625, this Court has taken up the matter for hearing. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33688 of 2013 5. This Court has carefully considered the said submission and on an elaborate consideration of the matter and perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is noticed that in the said case, the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of Manipur dated 21.04.1999 revising the quantum of pension provides for two different treatments for those Government employees who retired on or before 01.01.1996 and those who are retired after 01.01.1996 and the revised pension was fixed at different rates. Under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that there is no intelligible differentia in differently treating the pensioners by putting a cut off date. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed equal treatment to all the pensioners. 6. In the instant case, the impugned Government Order only provides for revision of pension for the pensioners as a whole and there is no discrimination shown among the pensioners, nor the pensioners were treated differently. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33688 of 2013 upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made several other submissions on merits, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects, as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the validity of the very same impugned order by orders dated 26.07.2017 referred to hereinabove. 8. In the light of the above, this Court does not see any reason to deviate from the view already taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17026 of 2015 and batch, dated 26.07.2017 and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ABR _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33688 of 2013 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. ABR To The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.No.33688 of 2013 30.04.2025 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis