Allowed

Mr. K.Thavasi, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Sept 2014WP/21454/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras held that an employee entitled to half-count of pre-regularisation service for pension under G.O.Ms.No.408 despite joining regular service after 01.04.2003, allowing the writ petition against the Forest Department.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.408 to the petitioner for pension and pass consequential order within 6 months.

Mr. K.Thavasi, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

W.P.No.21454 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

Mr.K.Thavasi ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶11

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶12

The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Range, Thirumayam (T.K) Pudukottai District.

¶13

The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Industrial Wood (Research Division), Mukkombu, Jayamkondam, Trichy District.

¶14

The Principal Accountant General of T.N., Accounts and Entitlement, O/o The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th respondent in proceeding No.Na.Ka.No.1330/13 Pa1 dated 19.08.20913 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of joining in service as Plot Watcher i.e. on 01.01.1979 to 13.10.2003 along with regularised service rendered by the petitioner as Mali from 14.10.2003 to 28.02.2013 as qualifying service and send the revised proposal to the 4^th and 5^th respondents as to grant pension with all consequential benefits and arrears with interest.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajesh For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 to 4 Government Advocate For R.5 : V.Vijayashankar

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Daily Wager in the Forest Department from 01.09.1979 onwards. He was absorbed into the regular service with effect from 14.10.2003. He retired from service on 28.02.2013. When the question of pension came up for consideration, the period spent by the petitioner prior to 14.10.2003 was not taken into account. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, half of the period spent as daily wager should be counted for the purpose of pension. But the 4^th respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1330/13 Pa1 dated 19.08.2013 has declined to count the said period. In the said order, the 4^th respondent has denied to sanction pension because the petitioner did not join duty on or before 01.04.2003 in other words, his service was not regularised on or before 01.04.2003. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

¶19

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and I have also carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶20

Of course, it is true that the petitioner had served as a regular employee only for a period between 14.10.2003 and 28.02.2013. But while computing the period of service for the purpose of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.408 referred to above, half of the period spent as daily wager should be counted for the purpose of pension. The scope of the said Government order came to be considered by this Court in number of Writ Petitions in W.P.No8205/2011 filed by one M.Gopal. By order dated 19.04.2011 in W.P.No.8205/2011, this Court issued a direction to count half of the period spent in terms of the above G.O. and in view of the consistent view taken by this Court, the petitioner therein is entitled for 50% of the service rendered by him as service period for the purpose of pension.

¶21

A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that half of the service period spent as daily wager was not taken into account in the case of the petitioner, because, according to the impugned order, the above said Government Order is applicable only to those employees who were brought into the regular service on or before 01.04.2003. Similar orders passed came to be considered in a number of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.5174 of 2008 dated 30.6.2008, 7263 and 7264 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008, 10447/2008 dated 16.7.2009 and 1375/2010 dated 3.3.2010 and W.P.No.25293/2010 dated 30.11.2010. In all these Writ Petitions, this Court has taken a view that even though the employee was taken into the regular service subsequent to 1.4.2003, still, the benefit of the Government Order should be extended to him. In view of the same, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said Government Order.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.408 to the petitioner for the purpose of pension. In any event, consequential order shall be passed, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(LA) Dated: 10.10.2014

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
the Government of Tamil Nadu
Forest and Environment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer,
Social Forestry Range,
Thirumayam (T.K)
Pudukottai District.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Industrial Wood (Research Division),
Mukkombu, Jayamkondam,
Trichy District.
5. The Principal Accountant General of T.N.,
Accounts and Entitlement,
O/o The Accountant General,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
+1 cc to M/s. Special Government Pleader SR.42763
+ 1 cc to M/s. V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate Sr.42946

¶27

W.P.No.21454 of 2014

¶28

RSI(CO) Eu 13.10.14

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr. K.Thavasi, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K.Thavasi, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Vs the Secretary to Government

T.Manikandan, Vs Director of School Education

M.Balasubramanian, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

N.K.Dharmalingam Vs Sabitha

P.Vadivelu Vs Mrs.Sabitha

N.Saraswathi Vs Mrs.Sabitha