Supreme Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on Tamil Nadu for challenging Madras High Court order granting pension to retired sweeper

The Supreme Court last week imposed ₹1 lakh costs on the Tamil Nadu government for protracting a litigation in connection with the pensionary dues claimed by a retired sweeper [Principal Secretary and ors vs K Lakshmanan]..In a strongly-worded order, a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, made it clear that the costs can be recovered from those responsible for dragging the case without any justification. "The application seeking condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions is bereft of any cogent reason for such a delay ....We find absolutely no reason to condone the delay in filing the petitions and are inclined to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay as also these petitions with imposition of exemplary costs where, unnecessarily this matter relating to pensionary rights of a sweeper-cum-sanitary worker is sought to be dragged in further litigation," the Court said. The amount has to be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association within four weeks, the Court directed. "Having regard to the circumstances, we also leave it open for the petitioners to recover the amount of costs from the persons/officers responsible for protracting this litigation and sanctioning such frivolous petitions without sufficient cause and without any justification," the order said..The State had moved the top court challenging a 2020 order of a division bench of the Madras High Court that had upheld the pensionary benefits to the respondent. The employee-sweeper in question had joined service in 1992 on an ad-hoc basis, was regularised in 2002 and had retired in 2012. He moved the High Court after his claim for pension based on the period including half of his tenure before being regularised, was rejected. A single-judge had in 2017 allowed his plea, after which the government moved the division bench which rejected the State's plea prompting the appeal before the apex court.The top court at the outset stated that order of the division bench of the High Court was just and well-considered. It came down on the State for seeking condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal, even after accounting for delays due to the COVID pandemic. The Court noted that the present litigation already involved writs, intra-court appeals and a review petition that was dismissed. "The baseless review petition filed by the present petitioners was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 02.03.2022," the Supreme Court noted.Hence, it rejected the plea. .Advocates D Kumanan and Sheikh F Kalia appeared for the petitioners. .[Read order]