The Court set aside a Single Judge's order directing the state to count 50% of daily wage service towards pension. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the Court held that employees regularized after 01.04.2003 are not entitled to count past service for qualifying pension.
Writ Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2938 of 2019 and
CMP No.19034 of 2019
Vs.
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court dated 06.06.2018 in W.P.No.5833 of 2016 and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Addl.Adv.General Assisted by Mr.M.Bindran, Addl.Govt.Pleader For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thirumoorthy for R1 to R12 JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.) This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the Government, to set
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5833/2016, dated 06.06.2018, in and by which, the appellants were directed to count 50% of the respondents' services rendered on daily wage basis along with their regular service and to allot GPF account number for grant of pension to the petitioners under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 (Old Pension Scheme)
Page 2 of 6
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
and also directed to complete the said exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
“44. The aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court ( State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [(1995) 4 SCC 683 ] would squarely apply to this case. Merely because this Court has passed multiple number of orders in favour of some of the similarly placed persons like the writ petitioners, it will not operate as resjudicata or it will preclude the State Government from questioning those orders in a parallel or similar proceedings. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the orders, hitherto passed by this Court, both single Bench or the Division Bench will not operate as a bar for maintaining these writ appeals or writ petitions or those orders will not be considered as the one which laid down any binding precedent to be followed in other cases. An order, which was not passed in accordance with the statutory provisions, need not be followed by
Page 3 of 6
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
the Court at the instance of similarly placed persons.
(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
(iii) In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularised before 01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits.
(iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.
(v) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.”
Page 4 of 6
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
the present case on hand and accordingly, the respondents herein are not entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension, since their services were regularized only after 01.04.2003, viz., on 11.10.2007, vide G.O.(Ms)No.1426, Home (Police-XV) Department, dated 11.10.2007.
(D.K.K.J.) (K.B.J.)
15.04.2024
Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No mst
Page 5 of 6
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K. KUMARESH BABU, J. mst
W.A.No.2938 of 2019
15.04.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether government servants regularized after 01.04.2003 are entitled to count half of their pre-regularization service for pension purposes?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. KaliyamoorthyReferred¶35
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government Vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy, reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705 (FB)
State of Maharashtra v. DigambarReferred¶36
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [(1995) 4 SCC 683] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police
The Principal, Police Recruit School
Shelly
Samu
Muniammal
D. Krishna Kumar
K. Kumaresan Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
