The Chairman Cum Managing Director v. K.V. Natarajan

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 26.08.2022 passed in W.P. No. 4503 of 2018.

¶2The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO is the appellant preferred the present intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent mainly on the ground that 1st respondent is a dismissed employee, and therefore, not entitled to claim service benefits in view of the Services Rules in force. The respondent was dismissed from service based on the order of conviction passed by the Criminal Court of law. Thus, his past services are forfeited in view of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (For brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

¶3Beyond Rule 21, learned counsel for the appellant would rely on an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of K.V.Natarajan Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO dated 26.08.2022, in W.P.No.4503 of 2018, wherein this Court considered the amendment made to the Fundamental Rules and Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933, issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100, Human Resources Management (FR.II) Department, dated 17.09.2022. In the said judgment, issues relating to entitlement of terminal benefits have been considered by this Court. In respect of earned leave, a dismissed employee is not entitled, since the entire services rendered by the dismissed employee forfeited in view of Rule 21 of Page3 of 7 the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which reads as under, "21. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal.- Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service." G.O.Ms.No.100, Human Resources Management (FR.II) Department, dated 17.09.2022 is extracted here under: Page4 of 7 Page5 of 7

4.Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that a dismissed employee is eligible to receive his contribution, and the Writ Court has granted such relief. Page6 of 7

¶5Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that contributions made by the respondent had already been disbursed. Therefore, he cannot seek any further benefits.

¶6This Court is of the considered view that the services of a dismissed employee stands forfeited in view of Rule 21. As far as earned leave benefits are concerned, amendment was made to the Fundamental Rules as stated above. Thus, respondent is eligible to receive the benefits available to a dismissed employee as per Rules, which had already been settled in the present case. That being the factum, further direction issued by the Writ Court is running counter to the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the amended Fundamental Rules.

¶7Consequently, the writ order dated 26.08.2022 made in WP.No. 4503 of 2018 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 30-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD WAoNo.o2363oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND K.KUMARESHeBABU,eJ. GD WAeNo.e2363eofe2025 30-03-2026 Page7oofo7

2026:MHC:1402 Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU 1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 2. The Superintending Engineer TN Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri ..Appellant(s) Vs K.V. Natarajan ..Respondent(s) Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent to set aside the Order dated 26.08.2022 made in WP.No. 4503 of 2018 and consequently dismiss the writ petition by upholding the order of rejection of the claim of the respondent to disburse the encashment of earned leave and encashment of unearned leave on private affairs made in the proceedings of the superintending engineer (O and M) Krishnagiri Electricity distribution circle in his office letter no.00600/36 Ni.Pi.2/U.2.Ko.K.V.Natarajan 2018 dated 08.02.2018 and thus render justice. For Appellant(s): Mr.K Rajkumar Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Prakasam Page2 of 7