Allowed

R.Jagannivasan v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC11 Mar 2024WP/6092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Village Administrative Officer sought counting of half his earlier Village Maniam service towards qualifying pensionary service under amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Relying on a Full Bench ruling, the Court held he was entitled to that benefit, set aside the rejection order and directed revision of pension with arrears within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.02.2018 set aside; respondents to count half of Village Maniam service as qualifying service, revise pension, pay arrears within two months; no costs.

R.Jagannivasan Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

R.Jagannivasan

.. Petitioner

/versus/

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

2.The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶13

5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in persuant to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in proceedings O.Mu.A5/1275/2017, dated

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/10

¶17

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶18

090202018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count half of the services rendered by the petitioner as Village Maniam from 17.12.1972 to 10.08.1982 and accordingly, count that services as qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and revise the pension and pensionary benefits and pay the arrears within a stipulated period.

¶19

For Petitioner :Mr.H.Mohamed Ghouse For Respondents :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal AGP for R1 to R4 Mrs.T.S.Selvarani, Standing Counsel for R5 ----

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to count half of the services rendered by the petitioner as 'Village Maniam' from 17.12.1972 to 10.08.1982 and count the services as qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and revise the pension and pensionary benefits and pay the arrears within a stipulated time.

¶22

2/10

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶25

On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, a counter-affidavit has

¶26

been filed. On behalf of the 5^th respondent, separate counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Village Maniam on 17.12.1972 and continued in service till 10.08.1982. Consequently, the said post was abolished by the Government and he was ousted from service. Subsequently, he was re-appointed as Village Administrative Officer and joined on 11.08.1982 and worked for about 22 years, 2 months and 21 days and also retired from service on 31.10.2004.

¶29

3/10

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was unable to get full pension, since he had not completed 30 years of service as Village Administrative Officer. He further contends that Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was amended and accordingly, half of the services on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages shall be counted as qualifying service for retirement benefits. As such, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit as per the amendment Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. He made a representation on 20.09.2010 to the fourth respondent. The petitioner has submitted another representation on 25.01.2018 to the third respondent. The said representation was rejected by the 4^th respondent by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the reason assigned in the impugned order to reject the claim of the petitioner is that the post of Village Administrative Officer is not

¶34

4/10

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶37

yet full time employment and it is only part time and as such the petitioner is not entitled to his claim. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has worked in the regular post of Village Maniam for about 10 years and subsequently, he reappointed as Village Administrative Officer. As such the service rendered by him as Village Maniam has to be taken into consideration to fix the pensionary benefits, in the light of the Amendment Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought to allow the Writ Petition.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed a reliance on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government Public Works Department,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in [2020(2) MLJ 369] and he has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.45 of the said judgment. Paragraph No.45 of the said judgment is extracted herein under:-

¶39

In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows:-

¶40

(i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after

¶41

5/10

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶44

01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 259 dated 06.08.2003

¶45

(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.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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."

¶49

On perusal of the same, it appears that the Full Bench, while

¶50

answering the reference, held that if such services were regularized before 01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be counted for the

¶51

6/10

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶54

purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits.

¶55

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶56

the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the judgment of the Full Bench has attained finality.

¶57

In view of the above factual position, it is held that the respondents ought to have considered the half of the services rendered by the petitioner as Village Maniam from 17.12.1972 to 10.08.1982 to fix his pensionary benefits.

¶58

Under these circumstances, the order impugned in this Writ

¶59

Petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:-

¶60

(i)The impugned order dated 09.02.2018 is hereby set

¶61

aside.

¶62

(ii)The respondents are directed to count half of the services rendered by the petitioner as 'Village Maniam' from 17.12.1972 to 10.08.1982 and to revise the pension and

¶63

7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶65

pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶66

(iii)The respondents shall pay the arrears, if any, to the petitioner.

¶67

(iv)The entire exercise shall be completed, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶68

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶69

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

11.03.2024

¶71

ari Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order Neutral citation:yes/no To: 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶72

8/10

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

W.P.No.6092 of 2018

¶75

2.The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶76

3.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶77

4.The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.