WP No.12245 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05-09-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.12245 of 2016
R.Dhayalan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5.
3.The Accountant General (A&E),
Teynampet,
Chennai-18.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vridhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.12245 of 2016
5.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Tittagudi,
Cuddalore District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
to consider the claims of the petitioner and count half of service rendered
prior to 01.06.1995 along with regular service for the purpose of pension
and grant pension as per the revised norms and pay arrears within a
reasonable time as was granted to Mr.Raju, Village Servant on the basis of
this Court's order which was also confirmed by the Apex Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arumugam
For Respondents-1,2,4 and 5 : Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik,
Government Advocate.
For Respondent-3 : Mr.S.Balaji
ORDER
The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and count half of 2/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 service rendered by the writ petitioner prior to 01.06.1995 along with regular service for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services for the grant of pensionary benefits.
2. The writ petitioner states that he was initially appointed as Village Servant on 21.12.1981 on contract basis. Pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government, the Village Servants, who were in service as on 01.06.1995, were brought under the regular establishment.
Accordingly, the services of the writ petitioner was provincialised by the Appointing Authority with effect from 01.06.1995 onwards.
3. It is not in dispute that the qualifying services of the writ petitioner were reckoned from his date of regular appointment i.e., on 01.06.1995. However, the petitioner claims that his earlier services rendered as Village Servant from 21.12.1981 are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the qualifying services.
3/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that 50% of the services ought to have been taken into consideration based on Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for the purpose of qualifying services. However, the said benefit has not been granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation and subsequently, filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner was employed and served as a part time Village Servant from 21.12.1981 to 31.05.1995. Due to part time services, during that period he was not paid the time scale of pay. The time scale of pay was paid with effect from 01.06.1995 after the permanent absorption of the writ petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.04.2011. Thus, the part time services rendered by the writ petitioner prior to permanent absorption on 01.06.1995 is not eligible for calculating pensionary benefits.
4/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016
6. It is contended that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.02.1996, half of the services rendered by the State Government employees under non-
pensionable establishment shall be allowed to be counted for pensionary benefits along with regular services under pensionable establishment subject to the following conditions:-
(1) Services under non-pensionable establishment should have been in a job involving whole time employment;
(2) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been on the time scale of pay;
(3) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been continuous and followed by absorption in pensionable establishment without break.
7. In the present case, the services of the Village Assistant prior to 1995 were only part time employment till 31.05.1995 and the Village Assistant was not on the time scale of pay. The petitioner was served only as part time employee and has also not served under the time scale of pay. He 5/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 was regularised only on 01.06.1995. Hence, the conditions stipulated in the above Government Order were not satisfied with the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 21.12.1981 to 31.05.1995 could not be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits.
The petitioner was paid all the retirement benefits due to him by strictly adhering the Government Orders and the Pension Rules applicable to him.
8. The common judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.1629 of 2018 etc., delivered on 26.02.2021, wherein the issue relating to the nature of job of the Village Assistants, Talayaris, Village Karnams were decided and the relevant paragraphs 18 to 21 and 26 and 27 are extracted hereunder:-
“18. We have already took note of the relevant Rules. A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983, clearly states the status and position of Writ Petitioners.
Certainly, they come under the definition 'Village Assistants'. However, Rule 3, which 6/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 facilitate a Village Servant to take job of part- time work or occupation, makes it abundantly clear that he is only a parttime Government Servant. Similarly, Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, which gives a succour to a part-time Government servant, as that of the respondents, gives a specific compensation. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules would show that a Village Servant/Assistant was having a part- time service alone.
19. Now, let us go into the subsequent Government Orders passed, followed by Rules viz., Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. We have already discussed the Government Order, which came into existence only at the instance of the respondents Village Assistants, who were working in such capacity as part timers. For the first time, under the said Government Order, a regular time scale of pay came into existence. This is a very important point to be noted with respect to the status of the respondents as part-time Talayaris and they 7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 have been brought into regular Government Service. Therefore, regular time scale of pay was fixed with effect from 01.06.1995. The subsequent Rules have been framed to take care of their interest. We may note that Rule 2 to reiterate the aforesaid position, which does not create any doubt in our mind. Under Rule 7, the eligibility of a Village Assistant would arise only when a Village Assistant renders qualifying service. Similarly, under Rule 4(a), the length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity, temporary, officiating and permanent (full-time) service alone should be reckoned as qualifying service. Now, this Rule has been given a go-bye. Resultantly, what the respondents (Talayaris) seek is a relief contrary to their regularisation order, by which, they were brought under the regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995 and the Rules framed thereafter. Therefore, they cannot approbate and reprobate and it is only on their request, part-time service was converted into full-time service prospectively, creating the status of regular post 8/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 with regular time scale of pay.
20. Much reliance has been made to Rule 11(a) read with Rule 2(o) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. These Rules are not applicable to the services of Talaiyaris, being in non-pensionable establishment and part-time and that too not in a cadre post. As per Rule 11(4), there must be whole-time employment. Similarly, there shall not be any break, which is in existence. Insofar as the other set of employees are concerned, viz., Village Officers (Karnams), we may appropriately quote Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. Even as per Rule 16 of the said Rules, the post of Talaiyari being-non pensionable, they are not entitled.
21. We are quite convinced with the entitlement of the respondents in the light of the discussions made. Our above said conclusion is also strengthened by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in 2019(6) CTC 705, which could be seen through 9/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 the following paragraphs:-
“29. Having regard to the above rule position, we proceed to examine the claim of the writ petitioners. Admittedly, the writ petitioners herein were appointed in various departments of the Government in non-provincialised services, on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wage basis, on contingency basis. They were not appointed against any sanctioned post or regular post. For having rendered such service, they were paid daily wage or wages from the contingency fund. To be specific, the writ petitioners were not appointed in a cadre post whether on temporary or permanent basis against vacancies which were duly notified. They were appointed on daily wage basis prior to 01.04.2003 on various dates. The service of some of the petitioners were also admittedly regularised after 01.04.2003 in a cadre post as and when permanent vacancies arose or had been notified. The writ petitioners therefore claimed that they are entitled to count half of the service rendered by them on daily wage basis or 10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 as contingent employees or on honorarium basis or in nonprovincialised services etc. along with the regular service as has been contemplated under Rule 11 (4). The petitioners also claimed equity on par with one Murugan, in whose favour, the Government passed G.O. (D) No.332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 by which the service rendered by the said Murugan, on daily wage basis for about 20 years was ordered to be counted along with his regular service rendered by him till his retirement on 30.09.2005. In other words, even though the service of the said Murugan was regularised after 01.04.2003, yet, as a special case, the Government issued G.O. (D) No.332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 and ordered to count half of the service rendered by him on daily wage basis along with his regular service. This had apparently sparked and/or kick-started a volley of writ petitions to be filed before this Court at the instance of persons similarly placed like the writ petitioners in this batch. This Court had 11/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 also, based on the order passed by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 directed the Government to count half of the service rendered by the persons similarly placed like the petitioners along with their regular service, purportedly on the ground of equity. The State Government filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, as against few cases in which such directions were issued by the single Bench. ...
31. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the writ petitioners have been temporarily employed with nomenclature such as daily wage employees, on consolidated pay or on honorarium basis etc. and as per Rule 11 (1) the service rendered by them in such temporary employment has to be counted along with the regular service in a cadre post. We wish to observe that the word temporary or officiating service employed in Rule 11 (1) is referable to 'temporary appointment' contemplated under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and 12/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 Subordinate Services Rules. On a reading of Rule 10 (a) (i), the wordings employed thereof are explicit and clear. A temporary appointment made to a government service is the one which is made in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category, meaning thereby such temporary appointment is made in an existing vacancy or notified vacancy. Rule 10 (a) (i) further makes the position clear that such appointment is permissible to be made by the appointing authority in case of emergency to fill the vacancy, in public interest. For such appointment, the appointing authority has to form an opinion that the procedural process for appointment to the cadre post will take some time and that such delay would prejudice the public interest. In such circumstances, Rule 10
(a) (i) can be invoked for appointing a candidate on temporary appointment in a sanctioned post. The service of such person, though appointed on temporary appointment can later be regularised by following the due procedure. The significance for invoking Rule 10 (a) (i), apart from public 13/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 interest, is the existence of sanctioned post or vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category. Thus, Rule 10 (a) (i) cannot be invoked in the absence of an existing vacancy in a cadre post. Therefore, we are of the view that the temporary appointment mentioned in Rule 11 of the Pension Rules, in the realm of Service Law Jurisprudence, is referable only to Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The writ petitioners were however appointed on daily wage basis on payment of honorarium or consolidated pay and did not come within the fold of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Only the appointments made under the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the aforesaid Rules alone can be considered as temporary appointment. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners relying upon Rule 3
(o) has to be rejected. Admittedly the Writ Petitioners were not appointed invoking Rule 10(a)(i).
... ... ... ... ...
14/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016
34. Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 confers an additional benefit to such class of Government servants to include half of the service rendered in the above capacity for determining qualifying service provided their service was regularised before 01.04.2003. Rule 11 (4) by itself is not intended to deny pension to respondents/writ petitioners if appointment was prior to 01.04.2003 in the cadre post, whether temporary or permanent.
35. Rule 11 (4) merely provides a method for determining the ? qualifying service? for government employees who were absorbed into service before cut-off date of 01.04.2003.
36. The significance of Rule 11 (4) is to bring the service of a government employee / servant within the realm of qualifying service to count half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provisionalised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis before 1st April 2003 for retirement benefits, if the absorption to service was before 01.04.2003.
15/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016
37. Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 allows a Government employee / servant appointed in a cadre post before 01.04.2003 as per the Rules whether in temporary or permanent capacity to include 50% of the service rendered in (i) nonprovincialised services; (ii) Consolidated pay; (iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis along with regular service subject to conditions stipulated therein. 38. For instance if a government employee/servant was appointed and absorbed between the cut off dates i.e. 01.01.1961 and 01.04.2003, then he/she will be entitled to include half of the service rendered under the State Government in (i) non- provincialised services; (ii) Consolidated pay;
(iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis into his/her services for determination of qualifying service.
39. On the other hand, if a Government employee / servant was not absorbed between the aforesaid cut off dates, he/she will not be entitled to include half of the service rendered under the 16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 State Government in (i) non-provincialised services; (ii) Consolidated pay; (iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis into his/her services even though such person may be entitled to Government Pension under the Rule if he/she was appointed in a cadre post on or before 01.04.2003 but was absorbed after the said date.
40. For example, if a person is appointed prior to 01.04.2003 in a non- provincialised service or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and later to a cadre post on temporary basis under Rule 10
(a) (i) of The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and such service is regularised after 01/04/2003, such Government employee is eligible for Government Pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules but at the same time would not be eligible to include half of services rendered in such capacity viz., i) Non-provincialised Services ii) Consolidated pay; iii) honorarium; or iv) daily wage basis to his regular service.
41. Thus, a government servant who may 17/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 have been appointed before the cut-off date of 31.03.2003 may be entitled to government pension if he satisfies the requirement of qualifying service in Rule 3(o) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. However, such a person will not be entitled to add half of the past service held in any one of the four capacity mentioned above prior to 01.04.2003 since his regularisation is subsequent to the cut off date. Therefore, only those who were appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether as temporary appointment but in accordance with Rule 10 (a) (i) alone will be entitled to get pension.
42. The cut off date i.e. on or after 01.04.2003 in proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will not per se bar a person from getting pension if such a person had joined the service in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules i.e in the cadre whether on temporary or permanent basis. Services rendered before the cut off date of 01.04.2003, can be added to the regular service only if the 18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 service was regularised before the said date for determining the qualifying service. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to say that Rule 11 (4) gives the meaning of qualifying service rather than giving significance to cut off date. Therefore, it is clear that only if the appointment is in accordance with the Rules and such appointment is prior to 01.04.2003, 50% of the past service can be added along with the regular service.
... ... ... ... ...
44. The aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court 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 res judicata 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 19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 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 the Court at the instance of similarly placed persons.” The sum and substance of the decision rendered, which in our view, is that a Government Servant is entitled for reckoning the half of the past services, even while working in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis only when there exists a cadre post. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, merely facilitate the reckoning of the past services of a Government servants subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
... .... ... .... ....
26. Having considered the entire issues involved, we also find that there is no application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by comparing the respondents with those 20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 who got the relief albeit without taking note of the relevant provisions of law. Granting the relief would amount to setting aside two pension Rules without even a challenge especially when the respondents got the benefit of regular employment and permanent posts under the subsequent orders passed, on their request.
27.In the result, the appeals filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu stand allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently, the appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.831 of 2020 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” Considering the judgment of the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court, cited supra, orders were passed by this Court in WP Nos.6862 and 6855 of 2022 dated 08.04.2022.
9. That apart, this Court elaborately considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 in WP (MD) 21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 No.20246 of 2013 dated 22.07.2019 and the relevant paragraphs 12 to 22 are extracted hereunder:-
“12. Let us now, go into the spirit of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980. The Rule was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers hereunto enabling and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Conduct Rules 1970 and of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules 1978, the Governor of Tamil Nadu makes the rules.
13. The rules unambiguously enumerates that it was issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Further, it clarifies that all the powers hereunto enabling and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules 1970 and of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules 1978.
14. In this context, it is relevant to consider the arguments of the learned counsel 22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was appointed prior to the year 1980 and he was appointed in 1969. Thus, his appointment ought to have been made under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980 and the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules 1978. Though the writ petitioner was appointed under the erstwhile rules after the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980, all these Village Assistants were brought under the rule and the earlier rules were superseded. In supersession of the earlier rules, the existing employees working in the cadre of Village Assistants were also brought under the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980 and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot say that the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980 is not applicable to them.
15. Now, it is relevant to go into the veracity of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980. Rule 1(4) 23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 of the Rules is extracted hereunder:
“......(1)(4)They shall apply to all Village Servants:-
(i) appointed on or after the coming into force of these rules;
(ii) appointed under the Madras Proprietory Estates' Village Service Act, 1894 (Madras Act II of 1894) of the Madras Hereditary Village Officers Act, 1895 (Madras Act II of 1895) and who continue to hold office by virtue of subSection (3) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Proprietory Estates' Village Service and the Tamil Nadu Hereditary Village Officers (Repeal) Act, 1968 (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1968) or under
(iii) the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under the Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules, 1978; and
(iv)under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Services Rules, 1970 on the date of coming into force of these rules.”
16. Rule 1(4) (iii) says that the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under the 24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules, 1978 and Sub-clause (iv) stipulates that “under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules 1970, on the date of coming into force of these rules”.
17. The above said rules unambiguously portrays that all the employees, who were appointed to the post of Village Assistants prior to the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980 were also brought under the rules and therefore, they cannot be dealt with the provisions of any other rules under which they were appointed prior to the year 1980. It is further made clear that all these Village Assistants appointed either under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under Board's Standing Orders) Service Rules, 1978 or under the Tamil Village Officers Service Rules 1970 were also brought under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980.
18. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that the very stand taken by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner 25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 that the rules of the year 1980, is not applicable to the writ petitioner is of no avail to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner after implementation of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980 was brought under the said rules by virtue of Rule 1(4)(iii) or Sub- clause (iv).
Rule 3 speaks about method of
recruitment. Rule 4 denotes appointing
authority.
Rule 5 enumerates qualification.
Rule 6 deals about temporary
appointments.
Rule 9 speaks about appeals against the orders of appointment.
Rule 10 provides revision.
Rule 11 is relevant which deals with probation. Rule 11 stipulates that “there shall be no probation for persons appointed to the post of Village Servant.” Rule 14 states amount to be paid on retirement. Accordingly, every person, who ceases to hold the post of part-time village 26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 servant by reason of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, shall be paid an amount for the total service put in by him as part-time Village Servant and such amount shall be determined in accordance with the provision of sub-rule(2).
Rule 14(2)(c) defines “total service shall not include any period during which a part-time Village Servant was on leave other than causal leave, or absent without authorisation or under suspension.” Sub-clause (4) deals with the determination of amount by competent authority. It states that “on receipt of the report from the Tahsildar, the competent authority shall determine the amount payable under this rule after taking into account, the total service put in by the part-time Village Servant.”
19. In respect of the part-time village servants, the Tamil Nadu Village Servant Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1983 was also issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1131 Revenue, dated 24.06.1983. Importantly, the Tamil Nadu Village Servants 27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 Conduct Rules, 1983 was issued separately. The said conduct rules also reveals that the village Assistant being a part-time Government Servant, may take up part-time work or occupation. Rule 3 stipulates that the part-time village Assistant can undertake private occupation or part-time work. 20. Thus, the conduct rules itself reveals that the part-time Village Assistants are entitled to accept any other part-time job, private work or occupation. However, such part- time or occupation shall not interfere with their legitimate duty as village servant and a previous permission is also to be obtained.
21. In these context, it is relevant to consider that the permission to accept the part- time employment was granted under the conduct rules in view of the fact that the appointment of the Village Assistants are on part-time basis.
22. The cogent and continuous reading of the entire provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rule 1980 as well as the conduct rules reveals that appointments to the post of Village Assistant are part-time in nature.
28/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 It is made clear that the part-time Village Assistants are entitled to accept the private employment on part-time basis or private occupation with the prior permission of the authorities concerned. The provisions of the service rules also states that they were considered as part-time Village Assistant for the settlement of terminal benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. This being the provisions of the rules, this Court is of the considered opinion that the very ground raised by the writ petitioner that he is a full-time employee cannot be accepted at all.”
10. In view of the judgments, cited supra, there is no doubt about the nature of job attached to the post of erstwhile Village Servants.
Even as per the Rules, the Village Servants were holding part time employment and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the Amended Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for the purpose of counting 50% of the services would be not applicable to the case of the Village Servants, so also to the petitioner, who served as Village Servant 29/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 prior to 01.06.1995.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
05-09-2022 Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Svn To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Accountant General (A&E), Teynampet, 30/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 Chennai-18.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tittagudi, Cuddalore District.
WP 12245 of 2016 31/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12245 of 2016 05-09-2022 32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis