Madras High Court
Kaliyammal vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 20 January, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
Kaliyammal ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
Forest and Environment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai.
3.The Forest Range Officer,
Puliyangudi,
Tenkasi District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to fix
and disburse pension and other retirement monetary benefits to the
petitioner by counting half of the service rendered by the petitioner's
husband late Seeniappan from 01.04.1987 to 06.08.2009 as Plot Watcher
on daily wage basis along with regular scale of pay service rendered by
the petitioner's husband from 07.08.2009 till 10.03.2013 with all
consequential benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had not
counted half of the service rendered by her husband Late Seeniappan
from 01.04.1987 to 06.08.2009 as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis
along with regular scale of pay service rendered by her husband Late
Seeniappan from 07.08.2009 till 10.03.2013, while fixing and disbursing
pension.
2.The issue with regard to the petitioner's entitlement was
referred to by a Hon'ble Full Bench in a batch of Writ Appeal in
W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc., dated 03.12.2019. For an authoritative
pronouncement, the Hon'ble Full Bench had gone into the depth of the
orders pronounced by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and
accordingly, had answered the reference by spelling out the entitlement
of these Forest Watcher for the purpose of counting 50% of the past
service.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
3.Paragraph No.46 of the order of the Hon'ble Full Bench reads
thus:-
'..........
46.In the light of the above, we answer the
reference as follows:-
i) Those who are freshly appointed on or
after 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.
(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.
(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.
(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 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
(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.'
4.The aforesaid observations spelling out the entitlement of the
petitioner is self explanatory. As such, if at all the petitioner's husband
fall in any one of the categories referred to by the Hon'ble Full Bench, it
would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the first respondent
herein with the necessary representations substantiating her claims for
counting of her husband past service and consequential revision of the
pensionary benefits.
5.In the light of the above observations, the petitioner herein is
granted liberty to give a fresh representation in the light of the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the batch of Writ Appeal in
W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc., dated 03.12.2019 in the case of The
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep., by Secretary to Government, Public
Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others Vs.,
R.Kaliyamoorthy. The petitioner shall endeavour to give such a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
representation to the first respondent atleast within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such
representations, the first respondent herein shall consider it in the light of
the aforesaid Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench, dated
03.12.2019, as well as the observations made in this order, atleast within
a period of three months there from.
6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
20.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
cp
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Forest and Environment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH, J.
cp
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai.
3.The Forest Range Officer,
Puliyangudi,
Tenkasi District.
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.19006 of 2020
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
