Madras High Court
) The State Of Tamil Nadu vs ) S.Manoharan on 1 December, 2021
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.10095 of 2021
1) The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
3) The District Forest Officer,
Kodaikkanal Forest Division,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants
vs.
1) S.Manoharan
2) The Principal Accountant General of Tamilnadu,
Teynampet,
Chennai-18. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the
common order dated 10.04.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.8620 of
2019.
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The 1st respondent herein had filed a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the appellants to count half of the services rendered by
him, as Plot Watcher from 20.04.1983 to 06.08.2009, when he was
on temporary basis, along with the regular service from
07.08.2009, till the date of his retirement, namely, 28.02.2019, as
qualifying service, for the purpose of computing pension.
2. The Writ Court had directed to count 50% of the service
of the writ petitioner, when he was working on temporary basis and
calculated the service from the date of regularisation till his date of
retirement.
3. Subsequently, there was a Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Government of Tamilnadu vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy,
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705, in which, it has been held that as
far as the appointments made on or before 01.04.2003, is
concerned, 50% of the services rendered by the employees, on
temporary basis, should be taken into consideration and insofar as
the appointments made on or after 01.04.2003 is concerned, since
the said appointees are governed by the new contributory pension
scheme, 50% of the services rendered by them, on temporary
basis, need not be taken into consideration, for the purpose of
calculating pension.
4. The Writ Court had followed the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu and others
vs. K.Sakthivel and another [W.A.No.51 of 2018 etc., batch,
dated 27.03.2018] and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, the
learned Special Government Pleader would point out that as per the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, referred supra, the
Government servants, who were appointed on or after 01.04.2003,
and absorbed in the regular service after 01.04.2003, will not be
entitled to count half of their past services, for the purpose of
determination of qualifying service for pension.
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
5. Admittedly, in this case, though the 1st respondent was
appointed as Plot Watcher on 20.04.1983, his services were
regularised only on 07.08.2009, and therefore, he will not be
entitled for counting 50% of the services, for the purpose of
calculating pension. It is also to be noted that the writ petitioner
has not challenged the belated regularisation. Almost after 30
years, only after his superannuation, he is seeking 50% of his
services to be calculated, for the purpose of computing pension. In
this regard, the subsequent Division Bench in The State of Tamil
Nadu and others vs. B.Devadoss and another [W.A.No.153 of
2019], where one of us, is a party, has held as follows:-
6.3. However, before parting with this case, it would
not be out of place to mention here that we have come
across many instances, where, the State had the practice
to regularize the employees only at the fag end of their
career, i.e. two years or three years before when the
employee is about to retire from service. After extracting
work from the employees for one or two decades,
regularising their service on the verge of their retirement
would not benefit the employees in any way, and by doing
so, the employees would obviously lose their entire
terminal benefits, which is their hard earned money by
sweat of the brow. We further noticed that the State had
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
the practice of reckoning 50% of the temporary service
rendered by the employees for the purpose of computing
pensionary benefits, only when the aggrieved employees
are coming before the Court craving for justice and
obtaining orders from the Court. We rebuke such practice.
We still have a ray of hope that State would take care of
its employees, at least in the womb of time by providing all
the benefits, to which, they are legally entitled to,
inasmuch as, the State is functioning only for the well
being of its people.''
6. Though we have expressed our anguish, we are unable
to help the 1st respondent, as he had not challenged the order of
regularisation dated 07.08.2009, but has filed the writ petition, only
to count 50% of the services rendered by him, on temporary basis,
as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary
benefits. He is not entitled to the said relief, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, referred supra.
7. In fine, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the
learned single Judge is set aside. It is also stated by the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent that the decision of the Full Bench is
under challenge, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the event, it
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
is in favour of the writ petitioner, it is open to him to file appropriate
application, to get the benefits extended to him. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [P.V.,J.]
01.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
To
1) The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
3) The District Forest Officer,
Kodaikkanal Forest Division,
Dindigul District.
4) The Principal Accountant General of Tamilnadu,
Teynampet,
Chennai-18.
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.2143 of 2021
DATED : 01.12.2021
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
