Disposed

M.Boopathy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Apr 2022WP/5147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction to count 50% of part-time services for pension, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's fresh representation within four weeks and decide on merits within twelve weeks, relying on Division Bench precedents regarding regularised part-time employees.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to make fresh representation; directed respondent to decide on merits within twelve weeks noting prior Division Bench judgments.

M.Boopathy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No. 5147 of 2021

¶6

M. Boopathy .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,

¶9

Fort St. George, Chennai- 600009.

¶10

2.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

¶11

3.The District Collector,(PD Section) Erode District, Erode.

¶12

4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu No.361 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count 50% services rendered by the petitioner in the post of part time Panchayat clerk from 05.03.1986 to 30.12.1990 and services rendered between 01.01.1991 till 31.01.1995 as panchayat assistant and with regular service from 25.09.1999 to 30.06.2024viz., age of superannuation in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment 259/2016 etc dated 10.03.2016.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mrs.T. Hemalatha For Respondents : Mr.M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as part time Panchayat Clerk in Mudachur Panchayat Union w.e.f. 05.03.1986 and subsequently, the post of part time panchayat clerk was redesignated as panchayat assistant from 01.01.991, thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Cashier (in the cadre of Junior Assistant) at Bhavani Panchayat Union w.e.f 24.09.1999. The Government in G.O.Ms.No. 39 Rural Development Department and Panchayat Raj, dated 13.06.2011 granted benefit of counting 50% to the employees of part time panchayat service. Subsequently, vide G.O.Ms.No. 77 Rural Development Department and Panchayat Raj, dated 12.07.2013 modified the said benefit by holding those employees who retire prior to the date of issuance of above Government Order are entitled to the benefit. The petitioner also entitled to the benefit to count 50% services rendered by the petitioner in the post of part time Panchayat Clerk from 05.03.1986 to 30.12.1990 and services between 01.01.1991 till 31.01.1995 as Panchayat Assistant and with regular service from 25.09.1999 to 30.06.2024 viz., age of superannuation.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.259 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016, W.A.No. 2358 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021 and W.A.No. 612 of 2016, dated 24.06.2016, wherein, it has been categorically held that the employees who got absorbed as regular government servant prior to 01.04.2003 are entitled to count 50% of the services rendered by them as part time Panchayat Clerk should be taken into account while calculating the Pension.

¶20

The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same will be considered by the 1^st respondent and appropriate orders will be passed within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court cited supra, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to issue directions to respondents to consider the claim made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the following directions are issued;

¶22

i. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

ii.On receipt of such representation, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law by taking note of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.259 of 2016, dated

¶24

10.03.2016, W.A.No. 2358 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021 and W.a.No. 612 of 2016, dated 24.06.2016, within period of twelve weeks thereafter.

¶25