Our Pension Case in ​SC

From: Ramamoorthy G <grama1937@hotmail.com>

Subject: Our Pension Case in ​SC

Justice N. Seshasayee of Madras High Court hangs up his boots after two decades of judicial service since he became a district judge in 2004

Justice N. Seshasayee of the Madras High Court retired from service on Tuesday ( 7th January 2025 ) penning down his last judgement describing himself to have served as an umpire, for over two decades, without being interested in the outcome of the "matches" (cases) since he was neither a player nor a spectator.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, represented by its managing director K.C. Palanisamy (KCP), regarding foreign investments in the company, the judge wrote: "In this case, I am required to umpire the final match of the series between the team- petitioner and the team-respondents......

Continuing his observations, the judge said: "Unfairness may tempt; unfairness may even pay at times; but unfairness certainly fails. And, it must fail. Fairness in thought and equity in conduct, form the soul of Dharma, and it must permeate into the deeper layers of conscience in guiding every action and every conduct.

"He also quoted the Sanskrit verses from the epic Mahabharatha and said: "Yato Dharma-Sthato Jayah (whence justice, thence victory) for Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshitah (Dharma protects the one who follows it).

In this connection I wish to put out the following facts : 

On 31-3-2016, the Honourable SC observed as under while writing their Orders : " ...........having stated so, in all possibility, we would have proceeded to record the conclusion but, a significant one, the contraversy of this nature does not see the sunset with such immediacy" ( Para 16 of the order). The Honourable Court remitted the case to Delhi HC to test the Constitutional validity of the Rules in Para 3A of the Appendix IV. They further observed " We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision........"  They also granted 40% IR,  genuinely feeling that the stated provision in the Rules is not in accordance with the Constitution. 

The Delhi HC also decided that the said rules violate the constitution. As we felt that the relief granted by the Delhi HC is not as provided in the Rules we came back to the SC for justice. 

Here it is very relevant to go through the above statement of the Retiring Honourable Madras HC , Mr Justice N Seshasayee. 

Submitted for your information please 🙏 

G Ramamooorthy.