Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Chinnakaruppan on 7 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3634 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Office,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
O/o. Tahsildar Office,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District. : Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Chinnakaruppan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
2.The Accountant General,
Accounts and Entitlement,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 018. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 02.08.2018 made in W.P.(MD)No.23520 of 2016.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for
final disposal.
2.Heard Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned
Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.08.2018
made in W.P.(MD)No.23520 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
4.The prayer sought for in the writ petition is for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaiing to the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4736/2016/E2 dated 26.08.2016 (signed on
22.09.2016) on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and
illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to count the
services of the petitioner in the cadre of Thalayari on consolidated pay as
per Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 along with the regular
time scale of pay in the cadre of Village Assistant for the purpose of
calculation of pension and send pension proposal to the second
respondent with consequential benefits.
5.The learned Single Bench, by the impugned order allowed the
writ petition and remitted the matter to the appellants to comply with the
directions contained in paragraph 51 of the impugned order. The
correctness of the identical orders were tested by this Court in the case
of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. E.Balachandran, in W.A.(MD)No.1629 of
2018 etc., batch, dated 26.02.2021. The appeals filed by the
Government were allowed and identical relief sought for in the writ
petitions were set aside. The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment
reads as follows:
“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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
they come under the definition 'Village Assistants'.
However, Rule 3, which 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
6.Following the above decision, the Writ Appeal is allowed and
the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. However, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
07.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
To
The Accountant General,
Accounts and Entitlement,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 018.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.815 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
