Credit for GDP uptick should go to UPA govt: Chidambaram

August 30, 2014

New Delhi, Aug 30: Taking credit for the uptick in domestic economy, former Finance Minister P Chidambaram today said the 5.7 per cent growth in the first quarter vindicates UPA government's projection that revival would take place in the beginning of 2014-15 as a result of measures taken in the previous fiscal.

"The GDP data for the first quarter of 2014-15 was released yesterday and the Congress party and I are naturally very pleased.

"The 5.7 per cent growth rate vindicates our position that the decline in economic growth had been halted in the middle of 2013-14 as well as our forecast that the upturn will take place in the beginning of 2014-15," he said in a statement.

Observing that the first quarter is the period between April and June 2014, he said it was the UPA government that was in charge until May 26, 2014.

"We are therefore legitimately entitled to take credit for the revival of the economy, although much more remains to be done," he said.

Chidambaram exuded confidence that economic growth could exceed 5.5 per cent in the current fiscal if the government of the day follows the policies of UPA government.

"I am glad that the Ministry of Finance has acknowledged that the data was broadly on expected lines. If the NDA government builds on the foundations laid by the UPA government, I am confident that the economy will grow at over 5.5 per cent in 2014-15," he added.

A number of steps were taken by the UPA government to revive manufacturing (reduction of excise duty), electricity (coal linkages) and mining sectors, he said.

Besides, a number of reforms were undertaken in the financial services sector, he said, adding that these are the lead performing sectors of the economy as per the latest CSO data.

Improved performance of mining, manufacturing and services sectors pushed the country's economic growth rate to two-and-half year high in the first quarter of 2014-15.

The previous high of GDP growth rate was recorded at six per cent in the October-December quarter of 2011-12.

Chidambaram expressed hope that GDP data would be higher than 4.7 per cent for 2013-14 as it would be revised upward.

"I wish to recall my statement of May 30, 2014 where I had pointed out that the growth rates for Q1 and Q2 of 2013-14 had been revised upward from the earlier estimates.

"I remain hopeful that the growth rates for Q3 and Q4 of 2013-14 will also be revised upward," he said.

According to the data of Central Statistics Office (CSO), the manufacturing sector recorded a growth of 3.5 per cent in Q1, 2014-15 as against a contraction of 1.2 per cent in Q1, 2013-14.

The mining sector too grew by 2.1 per cent in Q1, compared to a decline in production by 3.9 per cent in the year-ago period.

The highest growth rate during Q1, 2014-15 was recorded by financial services sector at 10.4 per cent, followed by electricity, gas and water supply at 10.2 per cent.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments