Dr.A.Xavier Remigius vs Government of Tamil Nadu

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 2455 of 2022
and
WMP No. 2618 of 2022
Dr.A.Xavier Remigius
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Dairy and Fisheries
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. Director of Animal Husbandry
DMS Compound,
Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
3. Assistant Director
Animal Husbandry Department,
Veterinary Hospital Compound,
Tiruppur 641 604.
4. Accountant General (A & E)
Tamil Nadu Office of the Accountant General,
No.261, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 018.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from
the Respondent No.1, 3 and 4, quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated
28.08.2020 bearing G.O. (D) No.208, Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries
(Ka.Pa1-2) Department, the order of the 1st Respondent dated 15.12.2020
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
bearing G.O.(D)No. 327, Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries (Ka.Pa1-2)
Department, the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 10.02.2021 bearing
No.4354/Aa/2020 and the pension Pay Order of the 4th respondent dated
10.03.2021 bearing No.AG(A & E)/PEN/P06/10623731/2/R.623731 in so far as
omitting 12 years of service while arriving at pension by excluding the period of
service from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 and the period of service from
16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 and taking only 17 years of service for the purpose of
pension instead of the entire service from 25.09.1973 to 29.09.2022 and on that
basis arriving at the pension, arrears of pension, revision of salary as illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to take into
account of the entire service of the petitioner from 25.09.1973 to 29.09.2002 for
the purpose of computation of pension by revising pension, pay arrears of
pension arising out of revision of pension and all other monetary benefits
arising out of such revision of pension.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)
Mr.L.Murali Krishnan (for R4)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to compute
the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 and from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992
for the purpose of calculating the pension.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of his alleged
unauthorised absence from 23.08.1980 to 12.10.1981 and again from
12.09.1982 to 15.09.1986. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, in W.P.No.6622 of 2012, dated 22.11.2018, the Writ Court
had directed the respondents to treat the period of alleged unauthorised absence
as duty for the purpose of computation of pension. In spite of the said direction,
the respondent authorities, by overreaching the orders of this Court, have
excluded the said periods for the purpose of computation of pension. Hence, he
would contend that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Iyyappan and others v. Union of India and
others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 742, and would contend that, when a
Court directs the authorities to do certain things, they cannot deviate from the
said direction by referring to the legal provisions. Hence, he prayed to allow the
present Writ Petition.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the first to third respondents and would
contend that the petitioner is not eligible to claim any benefits for the period
from 12.09.1982 to 15.09.1986. However, as per the direction of this Court in
W.P.No.6622 of 2012, the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992, though
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
treated as leave on loss of pay, was included for the computation of pension as a
special case. It is also his contention that, as per Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, leave on loss of pay cannot be computed for the purpose of
pension. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that, in the
impugned order dated 28.08.2020, in G.O.(D) No.208, Animal Husbandry, Milk
and Fisheries (Ka.Pa1-2) Department, though the period from 16.09.1986 to
14.07.1992 was treated as leave on loss of pay, as a special case, in G.O.(D)
No.327, Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries (Ka.Pa1-2) Department, dated
15.12.2020, the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 was computed for the
purpose of pension as a special case. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
5. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the periods from
12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 and from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 have to be
computed for the purpose of pension. From the counter affidavit, as well as
from G.O.(D) No.327, Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries (Ka.Pa1-2)
Department, dated 15.12.2020, it is seen that the respondents themselves have
already treated the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 through, as leave on
loss of pay have computed the said period for the purpose of computing
pension.
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
6. In view of the above position, the issue is now becomes narrowed
down to the question, as to whether the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986
has to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of
pension. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon
the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6622 of 2012, dated 22.11.2018, and
invite the attention of this Court to paragraph 21 of the said order. For ready
reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the same, which reads as
follows:-
“21. I hold that the writ petition will have to be allowed. I
further hold that the petitioner should be treated as Assistant
Veterinary Surgeon appointed on permanent basis, entitled for
all terminal benefits including pension. However, he is not
entitled for any salary or allowance for the period between
16.09.1986 and 14.07.1992. He shall be entitled for salary and
other benefits for the remaining period of service from the date
of his original employment on 25.09.1973 till the date of his
superannuation excluding the period between 16.09.1986 and
14.07.1992. The said period shall however be treated as duty
for the purpose of computation of pension alone. With the above
observations the Writ Petition is allowed, no costs.”
7. From the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that, when the Court had directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to
salary and other benefits for the remaining period of service from the date of his
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
original appointment ie., on 25.09.1973 till the date of his superannuation, the
said direction would include the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986. It is
also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, according to
the above order, the said period has to be treated as duty for the purpose of
computation of pension alone.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would interpret the above order
to mean that the said order covers the period between 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986,
though the same has not been specifically stated in the order. To substantiate the
same, the learned counsel would submit that, according to the above order,
when the petitioner’s right to receive salary and other benefits for the remaining
period of service from the date of his original appointment, namely, 25.09.1973,
the same would impliedly establish the inclusion of the period which has not
been specifically referred to in the order, namely, from 12.09.1980 to
15.09.1986.
9. On perusal of G.O.(D) No.208, Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries
(Ka.Pa1-2) Department, dated 28.08.2020, it is seen that the period from
12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 was treated as leave on loss of pay. As per the proviso
to Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, if any period is treated as leave on
loss of pay, the same cannot be computed for the purpose of pension, unless
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
there is a specific order to that effect. In the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.6622 of 2012, there is a reference to the effect that the period between
16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 should be treated as a duty period for the purpose of
pension.
10. Coming to the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986, when there was
an allegation of unauthorised absence and a charge memorandum was issued,
the petitioner challenged the same in O.A.No.1402 of 1996. In this regard, it is
relevant to extract the relevant portion of the impugned G.O.(D) No.208,
Animal Husbandry, Milk and Fisheries (Ka.Pa1-2) Department, dated
28.08.2020, which reads as follows:-
“2. மேலே 2ல் படிக்கப்பட்ட செயலாணை யின் வழி
தனியரை மதுரை மண்டலம், மதுரை கோ ட்டம்,
திருப்பரங்குன்றம் கால்நடை மருந்தகத்தில் இருந்து
திண்டுக்கல் மண்டலம், குஜிலியம்பாறை கேந்திர கிராம
நிலை ய கால்நடை உதவி மருத்துவர் பணியிடத்திற்கு
பணியிட மாறுதலில் 23.08.1980 அன்று பணி
விடுவிக்கப்பட்ட நிலை யில் மாறுதல் நியமனம்
வழங்கப்பட்ட புதிய பணியிடத்தில் பணியில் சேராமல்
தொ டர்ந்து விடுப்பு அனுபவித்துள்ளார் என்றும் அதன் படி
இவர் 23.08.1980 முதல் 02.10.1981 வரையில் விடுப்பு
அனுபவித்ததால் மேலே 3-ல் படிக்கப்பட்ட வழி தமிழ்நாடு
குடிமுறைப் பணிகள் (ஒழுங்கு (ம) மேல்முறையீடு)
விதிகள், விதி 17 (b)-ன் கீழ் 3 குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள்
ஏற்படுத்தப்பட்டன.
3. மேலே 3ல் படிக்கப்பட்ட குற்றச்சாட்டு
குறிப்பாணை யினை எதிர்த்து மரு.ஏ.சேவியர் ரெமிஜியஸ,
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
கால்நடை உதவி மருத்துவர் (விடுப்பில்) தமிழ்நாடு
நிர்வாக தீர்ப்பாயத்தில் வழக்கு (O.A.No.1402/96)
தொ டர்ந்ததையடுத்து, சென்னை , தமிழ்நாடு நிர்வாக
தீர்ப்பாணை யம் மேலே ஏழில் படிக்கப்பட்ட இறுதி
தீர்ப்பில் கீழ்க்கண்டவாறு தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளது:
"First the period shall be adjusted towards the period
to which he was eligible for leave of all kind. If after
such adjustment there was no leave to which he is
eligible, the rest of the period shall be treated as leave
on loss of pay.
However the petitioner's period of service actually
rendered & the period of leave to which he was
eligible shall be taken into account with reference to
his eligibility for pension."
4. மேலே 7ல் படிக்கப்பட்ட தமிழ்நாடு நிர்வாகத்
தீர்ப்பாயம் அளித்த இறுதி ஆணை யினை
நடை முறைப்படுத்தி, தனியர் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுக்களை
கைவிட அரசால் முடிவு செய்யப்பட்டு, மேலே 11ல்
படிக்கப்பட்ட அரசாணை யின் வழி, அவ்வாறே ஆணை
வெ ளியிடப்பட்டது. அவ்வரசாணை யினை நடை முறைப்
படுத்துவதற்கு, 23.08.1980 முதல் தனியர் அனுபவித்த
விடுப்புகளை வரன்முறை செய்திட வே ண்டும்
என்பதனால் தனியாது பணிப்பதிவே ட்டினை
சரிபார்த்ததில், பணிப்பதிவே ட்டின் படி தனியருக்கு
23.08.1980 நாளின் படி ஈட்டிய விடுப்பு 20 நாட்கள்
மட்டுமே இருப்பு உள்ளது என்றும், எனவே இவர்
23.08.1980 முதல் 15.09.1986 முடிய அனுபவித்த விடுப்பு
நாட்களில் 23.08.1980 முதல் 11.09.1980 வரை (20
நாட்கள்) ஈட்டிய விடுப்பாகவும் 12.09.1980 முதல்
15.09.1986 வரையிலான நாட்களை ஊதியமில்லா
விடுப்பாகவும் வரன்முறைப்படுத்திடலாம் என்றும்
கால்நடை பராமரிப்பு மற்றும் மருத்துவப் பணிகள்
இயக்குநர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். அதன் பின்னர் தனியர்
16.09.1986 முதல் 15.07.1992 முடிய விடுப்பை
அனுபவித்துள்ளார் என்றும் இக்காலத்தினை
ஊதியமில்லா விடுப்பு காலமாக
வரன்முறைப்படுத்திடலாம் என்றும் இயக்குநர்
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.”
11. According to the above narration, the order passed in O.A.No.1402 of
1996 did not specifically direct that the alleged period of unauthorised absence
to be treated as a duty period. On the other hand, it was only stated that the
petitioner was eligible for the available leave. As stated in paragraph 4 of the
said order, the petitioner had only 20 days of earned leave, which was adjusted
against the petitioner and treated for the purpose of pension. Since no further
leave was available, the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 was treated as
leave on loss of pay. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had not
specifically directed that the said period to be treated as duty, the question of
including the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 as a duty period for the
purpose of pension does not arise besides the same would be contrary to Rule
18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, by
the subsequent order, the said period had been treated as a duty period, the same
cannot be accepted, as the petitioner had challenged the disciplinary
proceedings in respect of the subsequent period, namely, from 16.09.1986 to
15.07.1992, in W.P.No.6622 of 2012. Therefore, whatever has been stated in
the said Writ Petition would be restricted to the period from 16.09.1986 to
15.07.1992, and the said direction was rightly complied with by the
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
respondents.
13. Since there is no direction to treat the period from 12.09.1980 to
15.09.1986 as a duty period for the purpose of computation of pension, either in
W.P.No.6622 of 2012 or in O.A.No.1402 of 1996, the question of claiming
pension for the said period of leave on loss of pay is contrary to the Pension
Rules. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in
R.Iyyappan’s case (cited supra), this Court is unable to find any deviation from
the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
14. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court does not find any
merit in the present Writ Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
KV
To
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Dairy and Fisheries Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry
DMS Compound,
Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Assistant Director
Animal Husbandry Department,
Veterinary Hospital Compound,
Tiruppur 641 604.
4. The Accountant General (A & E)
Tamil Nadu Office of the Accountant General, No.261, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 018.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )

2026:MHC:3707
WP No. 2455 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 2455 of 2022
08-09-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )