Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs C.Jeevarathinam on 9 April, 2021
WA.No.429 of 2021
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 09.4.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM
Writ Appeal No.429 of 2021 & CMP.No.1714 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
its Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (E2)
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Thiruvellore, Thiruvellore District. ...Appellants
Vs
C.Jeevarathinam, Night Watchman
(retd.) ...Respondent
APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 02.8.2017 made in W.P.No.33073 of 2016.
For Appellants : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, SGP
For Respondent : Mr.G.Elanchezhian
WA.No.429 of 2021
Judgment was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J
We have heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent,
the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The matter in issue pertains to counting 50% of the services
rendered by the respondent herein from 26.2.1990 to 11.6.2013 along
with regular services for the purpose of granting pension to the
respondent herein with all attendant benefits based upon the judgment
dated 08.10.2014 passed in W.A.Nos.1890 to 1893 of 2013 and the
order dated 18.6.2014 in W.P.No.12656 of 2013.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants has drawn our attention to the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu Vs.
R.Kaliyamoorthy [2019 (6) CTC 705]. In the light of the ratio laid
down in said Full Bench judgment, the Government servants/
employees, who were appointed in any of the following categories
namely (i) non provincialised service; (ii) consolidated pay; (iii)
honorarium or daily wage basis and who were absorbed in the regular
service after 01.4.2003, will not be entitled to half of the past services
WA.No.429 of 2021
for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.
4. In the case on hand, the services of the appellant came to be
regularized after 01.4.2003 and hence, the appellants pray for
interference.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
herein/writ petitioner submits that in the light of the law prevalent at
the time of disposal of the said writ petition on 02.8.2017, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is sustainable and
he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of
the learned counsel on either side and perused the material papers
placed before us.
7. The respondent herein - writ petitioner was initially appointed
as a night watchman on daily wage basis on 26.2.1990. He continued
in the same capacity till 06.6.1996. Thereafter, he was ousted from
service on the ground that he was not appointed through Employment
WA.No.429 of 2021
Exchange and thereafter, in compliance of the order of the Court, he
was reinstated into the services as night watchman and he was
continuing in the post till the date of retirement i.e. 30.9.2013. The
representation for regularization was once again moved before the
Court and in compliance of the order of the Court, the Government in
G.O.(D).No.171 Agriculture (Ve.Ni.4) Department dated 12.6.2013
regularized his services.
8. It is relevant to extract paragraph 45 of the said Full Bench
judgment, which reads as hereunder :
“In the light of the above, we answer the
reference as follows :
(i) Those, who are freshly appointed on
or after 01.4.2003, 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 06.8.2003;
(ii) Those Government servants/
employees appointed prior to 01.4.2003
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;
WA.No.429 of 2021
(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 regularized before 01.4.2003,
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 the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules before
01.4.2003 and absorbed into regular service
after 01.4.2003 will not be entitled to count
half of their past service for the purpose of
determination of qualifying service for pension;
and
(v) Those Government servants, who
were appointed in the aforesaid four categories
before 01.4.2003 but were absorbed in regular
service after 01.4.2003 will not be entitled to
count half of their past service for the purpose
of determination of qualifying service for
pension.”
9. The case of the respondent herein – writ petitioner falls within
WA.No.429 of 2021
Clause (v) of paragraph 45 of the said Full Bench judgment and in the
light of the fact that his services came to be regularized in terms of the
said Government Order, the respondent herein is not entitled to be
considered for counting 50% of the service rendered by him from
26.2.1990 to 11.6.2013 along with the regular service for the purpose
of granting pension.
10. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the said writ petition,
has taken note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Union of India Vs. Punniyakoti [reported in 2014 (2)
CTC 777]. In the above cited Full Bench judgment, the decision
reported in 2014 (2) CTC 777 has also been considered and the
reference has been answered in terms of paragraph 45.
11. In view of Clause (v) of paragraph 45 of the said Full Bench
judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order
passed in the said writ petition, which is the subject matter of this writ
appeal, warrants interference.
12. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, the order dated
WA.No.429 of 2021
02.8.2017 made in W.P.No.33073 of 2016 is set aside and W.P.No.
33073 of 2016 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is also dismissed.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent herein, on
instructions, would submit that in respect of the order dated 02.8.2017
made in W.P.No.14966 of 2016 filed by one Mrs.G.Mani, the impugned
order has been complied with.
14. If it is so, it is always open to the respondent herein to submit
a fresh representation in this regard to the appellants, who, upon
receipt of the same, shall consider and dispose it of on merits and in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
09.4.2021
Speaking Order
Internet : Yes
RS
WA.No.429 of 2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J
AND
P.RAJAMANICKAM,J
RS
WA.No.429 of 2021 &
CMP.No.1714 of 2021
09.4.2021
