Allowed

T.Ramaparamasivar, v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Sept 2014WP/5482/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a writ petition seeking mandatory direction to count half of the petitioner's service as a daily wage Plot Watcher along with regular service for pension calculation, relying on consistent earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to count half of the daily wage service from 01.02.1982 till 23.01.1995 along with regular service for pension calculation.

T.Ramaparamasivar, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.5482 of 2014

¶6

T.Ramaparamasivar .. Petitioner vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, having office at Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 3.The District Forest Officer, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office at DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. .. Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis from 01.02.1982 till 23.01.1995 along with regular service rendered by him as Forest Watcher from 24.01.1995 and as Forest Guard from 02.12.2010 till the date of his retirement, namely, 31.03.2014 as qualifying service, send the revised proposal to the fourth respondent, to grant pension to the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For respondents 1 to 3: Mr.N.Inbanathan Government Advocate

¶9

For 4^th respondent : Mr.V.Vijayashankar

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mandamus to direct the respondents to count half of the service

¶12

rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher from 01.02.1982 to 23.01.1995, along with regular service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for pension benefit and all consequential monetary benefits.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he joined as temporary Plot Watcher in the respondents department on 01.02.1982 on daily wage basis and he continued to work there without any remarks. His services were regularised on 24.01.1995 and retired from service on 31.03.2014. The respondents 1 to 3 have not counted half of the services rendered by the petitioner as daily wage employee for the purpose of conferment of pension. In this regard, the petitioner also made a representation dated 11.12.2013 to the respondents 1 to 3 but there is no response from them. Hence, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking for relief stated above.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue relating to this case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court and in a batch of Writ Petitions, this Court directed the respondents to count half of the service rendered by the workers who were employed on daily wage basis for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for grant of pension and relied upon the orders passed in W.P.Nos.2185 of 2012 etc., batch dated 13.06.2012 and Writ Appeal Nos. 27 and 28 of 2012 by the Hon'ble First Bench on the Appeals filed by the respondents. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11857 of 2010 etc., batch dated 11.11.2013, and various other Writ Petitions.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶16

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the judgments referred to above, this Court consistently held that half of the service rendered by the daily rated worker shall be counted for grant of pension and following the same, the petitioner is also entitled to claim pension. Admittedly, the petitioner joined service on 01.02.1982 as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis and his name was also included in the seniority list and his service was regularised on 24.01.1995 and he was retired from service on 31.03.2014.

¶17

Hence, following the judgments of this Court referred to above, this Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis from 01.02.1982 to 23.01.1995 along with regular service rendered by him, as qualifying service for calculating pensionary benefits and send proposal to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fourth respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of

¶18

receipt of a copy of this order and the fourth respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar / True copy / Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

asvm

¶21

To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment & Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, having office at Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 3.The District Forest Officer, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office at DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. +1 C.C. to The Special Government Pleader SR.No.41779 +1 C.C. to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate SR.No.41996 W.P.No.5482 of 2014 GJ(CO) VS 18.09.2014

¶22

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

T.Ramaparamasivar, v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ramaparamasivar, v. Government 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

V.Manickam Vs State of Tamilnadu

M.Baskar Vs the Principal Secretary to

A.Saminathan Vs State of Tamilnadu

V.Paramasivam, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Amirthalingam Vs Assistant Commissioner Excise

K.Sakthivel Vs The Chairman cum Managing