Here's a breakdown of a recent court decision involving a pension plan for retired government employees in Chennai. Let's dive into the details.
The story begins with three people: V.S. Bhuvaneswari, S. Nagalakshmi, and T. Sundari Bai. They were first hired as Section Writers on daily wages on February 8, 1985, through the Employment Exchange. Their jobs became permanent as Record Clerks on October 20, 2006. After they retired between 2014 and 2015, they wanted the benefits of the old pension plan.
In 2016, V.S. Bhuvaneswari, S. Nagalakshmi, and T. Sundari Bai asked the court to give them the old pension plan. On August 2, 2017, the court agreed with them, allowing them to get pensions by counting half of their temporary work time.
"The petitioners were allowed pension benefits by counting 50% of their temporary service."
Even though the court gave an order, V.S. Bhuvaneswari, S. Nagalakshmi, and T. Sundari Bai's requests were turned down because their jobs became permanent after April 1, 2003. They filed another request (W.P. No. 32327 of 2024) which led to a court order on November 12, 2024. The court asked Thiru. Dr. B. Chandra Mohan and the other people involved to rethink the petitioners' claims based on several Government Orders.
The Government issued Order No. 92 on September 30, 2025, giving the old pension plan but starting from the date of the order, not when the petitioners retired. This led to another complaint filed by V.S. Bhuvaneswari, S. Nagalakshmi, and T. Sundari Bai.
Justice M. Dhandapani decided that since the Government Order was in place, no further action on the previous order was needed. The petitioners were told to seek other legal options if they were unhappy.
"In view of the Government Order, no further compliance is required."
This case shows how complicated administrative decisions can be and the role of the courts in making sure things are fair.
