Madras High Court

S.Durairaj Roach vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 July, 2021

                                                                      W.P.No.20396 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

                                                DATED: 07.07.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

                                               W.P.No.20396 of 2018

                     1.S.Durairaj Roach
                     2.V.Rengasamy
                     3.S.Ramachandran
                     4.M.Venkataraman
                     5.T.Padma
                     6.A.Manonmani
                     7.R.Banumathy
                     8.S.Banumathi
                     9.S.Sundrambal
                     10.S.Kulandhaisami
                     11.G.Pannirselvam
                     12.K.Adaikalam
                     13.P.Govindasamy
                     14.G.Ebinesar
                     15.V.Chinnasamy
                     16.K.Rethinam
                     17.S.Kannamal
                     18.R.Srikaran
                     19.M.Natarajan
                     20.G.Thirugnanam
                     21.A.Gandhi
                     22.D.Ezhili
                     23.A.Vivekanandhan
                     24.S.Duraimani
                     25.A.Baby Saroja                                  ...Petitioners

                                                       Vs


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            W.P.No.20396 of 2018

                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
                       Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
                       Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
                       Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

                     2.The Commissioner of Rural Development
                           and Panchayat Raj Department,
                       Panagal Building,
                       Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

                     3.The District Collector (PD Section)
                       Thanjavur District,
                       Thanjavur.

                     4.The District Collector (PD Section)
                       Thiruvarur District,
                       Thiruvarur

                     5.The Principal Accountant
                           General (A&E) Tamil Nadu,
                       No.361 Anna Salai,
                       Chennai-600 018.                                      ...Respondents

                       PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to
                     count two years Rural Welfare Officer training period undergone by the
                     petitioners and spouses of the petitioners respectively for increment and
                     grant increment in the posts in which they were holding as on 30.07.1992
                     as per G.O.Ms.No.85 Rural Development and Panchayat (PA4) Department
                     dated 11.09.2012 and consequently refix their pay and pension/family
                     pension together with arrears of pay and pension/family pension.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  W.P.No.20396 of 2018

                                            For Petitioners    : Mr.V.Suthakar

                                            For R1 to R4       : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
                                                                 Government Counsel

                                            For R5             : Mr.S.Balaji


                                                           ORDER

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final

disposal.

2. All the petitioners herein are retired Block Development Officers,

Deputy Block Development Officers and Family Pensioners in the Rural

Development Department at Thanjavur and Tiruvarur Districts. Since the

respondents herein have not extended their respective increments for the

said posts during the two years training period undergone by them, they

have sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to

refix their pay and pension/family pension together with arrears of pay/

pension

3. The entitlement of sanction of increments for the training period is

a task to be undertaken by the respondents and this Court may not be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20396 of 2018

justified in stepping into the shoes of the respondents for determining their

entitlement.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners' entitlement has already been decided in favour of

similarly placed retired employees in a writ petition before this Court in the

case of K.Radhakrishnan and 105 others Vs. The Government of Tamil

Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others

passed in W.P.No.22121 of 2014 and this Court had passed an order as

follows:-

"4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are all retired Government Servants of Rural Development Department and held the post of Divisional Development Officer, Block Development Officer, Deputy Block Development Officer, Extension Officer (since abolished) etc. The petitioners underwent two years training in the cadre of Rural Welfare Officer and therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.85, Rural Development and Panchayat (PA4) Department dated 11.09.2012. Further as per

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20396 of 2018

G.O.Ms.No.535, Rural Development Department dated 10.07.1986, guidelines were issued and persons who have undergone Rural Welfare Training therein were permitted to count that period for the purpose of seniority and increment. Since the period of two years training in the cadre of Rural Welfare Officer undergone by the petitioners have not taken into consideration while calculating the pension, the Writ Petition is filed for the relief stated above.

5. It is further submitted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that in W.P.No.10686/2008 dt.22.03.2010 (S.Natarajan vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development (E4) Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009 and two others), this Court directed the Government to consider the training period of two years as Rural Welfare Officer as qualifying service for pension and other benefits and following the same, various Government Orders were passed.

Thereafter in Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.7907 and 7908/2013 orders were passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 04.06.2013 by directing the respondents to pay increments and other monetary benefits to the petitioner for the training period in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20396 of 2018

posts held by the petitioners therein in those Writ Petitions. Following the same several other writ petitions have been filed and disposed of in the above terms.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that in similar circumstances, this Court has directed the authorities to consider the training period undergone by the petitioners as Rural Welfare Officer for increment and pension.

7. Considering the submissions made on either side and also following the various judgments rendered by this Court cited above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refix the period spent by the petitioners in the Rural Welfare Officer Training as qualifying service for pension and pay arrears of pension and other benefits. It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20396 of 2018

5. The aforesaid case may be applicable to the claim made by the

petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that the task of considering

the petitioners' request may be assigned to the concerned respondents.

6. In the light of the above observations, the petitioners herein are

granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the second respondent

herein ventilating their grievances, as expeditiously as possible and on

receipt of the same, the second respondent herein shall consider such a

representation, in the light of the findings of this Court in the case of

K.Radhakrishnan and others (supra) made in W.P.No.22121 of 2014 and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months

from the date of receipt of the said representation.