Madras High Court
D.Velayutham vs The Director Of Town Panchayats on 9 July, 2021
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 25.10.2021
Pronounced On 15.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.22615 & 22617 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
D.Velayutham ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.21367/21
K.Annamalai ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.21370/21
Vs.
1.The Director of Town Panchayats
Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.
2.The Executive Officer,
Ulundurpet Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondent in
both W.Ps.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the second respondent in its Na.Ka.No.932/2006/A1 dated 09.07.2021
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix the
pay the petitioner notionally from 01.10.1989 & 01.06.1988 as per the
order passed by the Inspector of Labour and in the light of the order
passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.40498 & 40495 of 2002 and by revising
the salary and grant them arrears with effect 18.09.2007, i.e. from the
expiry of the eight weeks from the order dated passed in W.P.Nos.40498
& 40495 of 2002 and consequently grant pension, gratuity, earned leave
encashment and other terminal benefits by taking into account the revised
last drawn salary.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayashankar
For First Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Government Advocate
For Second Respondent : Mr.S.Arumugam
Government Advocate
*****
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to :-
i. call for records of the second respondent in its
Na.Ka.No.932/2006/A1 dated 09.07.2021 and
quash the same;
ii. direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner
notionally from 01.10.1989 & 01.06.1988
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
respectively as per the order passed by the Inspector
of Labour and in the light of the orders passed by
this Court in W.P.No.40498 of 2002 and
W.P.No.40495 of 2002;
iii. grant arrears to the petitioners by revising the salary
with effect from 18.09.2007, i.e. from the expiry of
the eight weeks from the orders passed in
W.P.No.40498 of 2002 and W.P.No.40495 of
2002; and
iv. grant pension, gratuity, earned leave encashment
and other terminal benefits by taking into account
the revised last drawn salary.
2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were employed by the
second respondent Town Panchayat as Sweepers in the year 1987 & 1986
respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that their services were not
regularized by the second respondent Town Panchayat under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
3. Under these circumstances, the petitioners had filed a petition
before the Inspector of Labour who by order dated 08.06.1997 held that
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed as regular employees of the
second respondent Town Panchayat in terms of Section 3 of the said Act.
4. The operative portion of the order of the Inspector of Labour
dated 06.06.1997 reads as under:-
“nghJthf ,uz;L fhyz;lH Mz;Lfspy; 480
ehl;fs; njhlh;e;J gzpahw;wp tUtjhf kDjhuh;fs;
$wpAs;sij vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; jdJ fbj
vz;.m1/203-/96 ehs; 24.1.97-d; gb
xg;Gf;nfhz;lgbahy; 480 ehl;fs; gzpahw;wpa
tptuk; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ,r;rl;lg; gphpT 3(2)-
y; tiuaWf;fg;gl;lthW 24 khj fhy fl;lj;jpy;
kDjhuh;fs; gzpapy; Nrh;e;jjhf eph;thfk;
njhptpj;Js;s ehspypUe;J 480 ehl;fSf;F Nky;
njhlh;r;rpahf gzpahw;wpAs;sdh; vd;gJld;.
,r;rl;lg;gphpT 3(1)-d; gb epue;juj; jFjp ngw
jFjpahdth; vd;W Nky; Fwpj;jf; fhuzq;fspd;
mbg;gilapy; KbT nra;fpNwd;. vdNt> Nkw;gb
kDjhuh;fs; 7 NgUf;Fk; ,r;rl;lg;gphpT 2-d; gb
,e;j cj;jpuT fpilj;j 30 jpdq;;fSf;Fs; 481-tJ
ehspypUe;J epue;ju jFjp kw;Wk; jpuz;l gad;fs;
midj;Jk; KiwNa epYit Cjpak;> <l;ba
tpLg;G> g+upg;G Cjpak; Mfpaitfis nfhLj;Jk;
kw;Wk; tUq;fhy itg;Gepjp ,ju rYiffs;
Mfpad toq;Fk;gbAk; vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpw;F
cj;jputpLfpNwd;.
5. Almost after a lapse of five years, the Executive Officer of the
second respondent Town Panchayat filed writ petitions in
W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.40497,
40498 & 40500 of 2002. By two separate orders dated 18.09.2007 and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
24.09.2007, the writ petitions filed by the Executive Officer of the second
respondent Town Panchayat were disposed. Relevant portion of the
respective orders read as under:-
W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002
''4. Today, the petitioner and the first
respondent/workmen in all these writ petitions are
present before the Court and they have filed a joint
memo of compromise signed by them, under which,
the petitioner has accepted the appointment of the
first respondent/workmen as permanent employees
of the Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, without any
back wages, as the first respondents/workmen have
given up their claim for back wages.
5. In view of the same, the memo of
compromise is recorded and the writ petitions are
disposed of in terms of the memo of compromise.
The petitioner is directed to complete the process of
appointment of the first respondents/workmen as
permanent employees of the Ulundurpet Town
Panchayat, after fulfilling the statutory
requirements, and pass necessary orders, as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Needless to state that the first
respondents/workmen, on conferment of
permanent status, shall be entitled to all other
benefits, excepting back wages, which have been
given up by the first respondents/workmen
themselves in all these writ petitions. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
costs.''
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 5 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of 2002
''4. Today, the petitioner and the first
respondent/workmen in all these writ petitions are
present before the Court and they have filed a joint
memo of compromise signed by them, under which,
the petitioner has accepted the appointment of the
first respondent/workmen as permanent employees
of the Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, without any
back wages, as the first respondents/workmen have
given up their claim for back wages.
5. Earlier, in W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40496
& 40499 of 2002, dated 18.09.2007, recording the
memo of compromise, this Court disposed of those
writ petitions.
6. In view of the same, the memo of
compromise is recorded and the writ petitions are
disposed of in terms of the memo of compromise.
The petitioner is directed to complete the process of
appointment of the first respondents/workmen as
permanent employees of the Ulundurpet Town
Panchayat, after fulfilling the statutory
requirements, and pass necessary orders, as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Needless to state that the first
respondents/workmen, on conferment of
permanent status, shall be entitled to all other
benefits, excepting back wages, which have been
given up by the first respondents/workmen
themselves in all these writ petitions. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
costs.''
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 6 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
6. These petitioners were subsequently appointed on 12.09.2008,
by which time, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 stood amended in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department dated
06.08.2003 vide S.R.O. B-82/2003 with effect from 1st of April, 2003.
These petitioners have retired from the service during 2009 & 2011.
Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners have sent
representations asking the respondents to grant Government Pension
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as it stood
prior to being amended vide G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension)
Department dated 06.08.2003.
7. The respondents have passed the impugned order by referring
to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.158 of 2019
and batch vide order dated 13.12.2019, wherein, the Full Bench of this
Court has answered the reference as follows:-
45. In the light of the above, we answer the
reference as follows:-
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 7 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
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
before 01.04.2003 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.
(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."
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 8 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
8. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel
submits that the respective petitioners were entitled for a permanent status
in the second respondent Town Panchayat in terms of the order of the
Inspector of Labour dated 08.06.1997 and therefore entitled to not only to
the Government Pension under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules 1978 but also to reckon the same for determining the qualifying
service under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.
9. It is further submitted that the second respondent represented by
its Executive Officer though had filed writ petitions, these writ petitions
were disposed in terms of the Memo of Compromise, wherein, the rights
that were given up by the petitioners were confined to claim back wages
and therefore the stand of the Department that the petitioners were not
entitled to pension in terms of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 cannot
be countenanced.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 9 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
best, the petitioners are not entitled for back wages alone. It is also
submitted that the petitioners are however entitled to include the service
rendered by them in the temporary capacity from the respective date of
their employment and expiry of 480 days in terms of the provision of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act, 1981.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court would not come in the way of
grant of pension to the petitioners as the Court dealt with a different issue
altogether in a reference to the Full Bench.
12. It is also submitted that the second respondent cannot take
advantage of their own mistake in not complying with the order dated
08.06.1997 of the Inspector of Labour. It is further submitted that it is
not open for the respondents to state that the petitioners were not to be
considered as “permanent employees” of the second respondent at this
distinct point of time especially after having extracted the work from the
these petitions from the year 1986 and 1987 respectively.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 10 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
13. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the learned
Government Advocate submits that the issue is squarely covered against
the petitioners in terms of the decision of the Full Bench rendered in
W.A.No.158 of 2019 referred to supra. The learned Government
Advocate further submits that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 does not
apply to the Local Body inasmuch as they are not “industrial
establishments” within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. It is further
submitted that the appointments in the second respondent Town
Panchayat has to be in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.199,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply (TP-3) Department, dated
12.08.1997 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.205, Rural Development
Department, dated 23.03.1989.
14. It is also submitted that the right to claim pension under the
unamended Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will not apply to the
petitioners inasmuch as the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 11 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
Rules, 1978 clearly states that the Rule shall not apply to the Government
servants appointed on or after 1st of April, 2003 in the Government
service. It is submitted that it cannot be said a service in connection with
the affairs of the State which were borne on pensionable establishment,
whether on temporary or permanent.
15. It is also submitted that the appointment of the petitioners are
only in the year 2008 i.e., with effect from 12.09.2008 and therefore the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Government Pension. It is
further submitted that the prior to the above said date, the petitioners only
come within the exception provided in Rule 2 of the Pension Rules 1978.
Therefore, on this count also, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief.
It is therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be interfered
based on the submissions and averments in the affidavit of the petitioners.
Finally, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits
that a reading of Rule 11 of the Pension Rules makes it clear that the
petitioners are not entitled to include the period of service rendered in
temporary capacity on daily wage basis and therefore, these writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 12 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
16. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents has drawn my attention to G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal
Administration & Water Supply (TP-3), dated 12.08.1997, wherein, a
general norms was fixed for new recruitment. He also referred to
G.O.Ms.No.205. Rural Development Department, dated 23.03.1989,
wherein, it was specified that the recruitment was to be made only by the
following due recruitment process.
17. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the notional fixation of the
pay with effect from the expiry of 480 days from their initial date of
appointment in terms of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 13 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
19. The facts are not in dispute. In this case, the petitioners have
been in continuous service of the second respondent as sanitary workers
between 1986 and 1987. The respondents ought to have regularized the
service of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 08.06.1997 of the
Inspector of Labour. The second respondent also took about 5 ½ years to
file Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002
and W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of 2002 before this Court against
said order dated 08.06.1997 of the Labour Inspector. The said Writ
Petitions were disposed by orders dated 18.09.2007 & 24.09.2007
respectively based on a Compromise Memo. The relevant portion of the
said orders has already been extracted in Paragraph 5 of this order.
20. Paragraph 4 of the said orders which has been extracted above
clearly states that the second respondent had accepted the appointment of
the petitioners as permanent employees, without any back wages, as the
petitioners have given up their claim for back wages. The last paragraph
(i.e. paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.09.2007 and paragraph 6 of the
order dated 24.09.2007) of the said orders clearly also states that the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 14 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
petitioners were entitled to all other benefits excepting backwages.
21. It would be apt to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sheo Narain Nagar Vs. State of of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the plight of the
workers from the marginalized section of the Society / Communities.
Relevant portion from the said decision is re-produced below:-
“7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it
is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been
properly understood and rather wrongly
applied by various State Governments. We have
called for the data in the instant case to ensure
as to how many employees were working on
contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage
basis in different State departments. We can
take judicial notice that widely aforesaid
practice is being continued. Though this Court
has emphasised that incumbents should be
appointed on regular basis as per rules but new
devise of making appointment on contract basis
has been adopted, employment is offered on
daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This
situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3)
[State of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The prime
intendment of the decision was that the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 15 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
employment process should be by fair means
and not by back door entry and in the available
pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State
of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and
conveniently overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities. We regretfully make
the observation that Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been
implemented in its true spirit and has not been
followed in its pith and substance. It is being
used only as a tool for not regularising the
services of incumbents. They are being
continued in service without payment of due
salary for which they are entitled on the basis of
Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India as if they have no
constitutional protection as envisaged inD.S.
Nakara v.Union of India [D.S. Nakara v.Union
of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] , from cradle to grave.
In heydays of life they are serving on
exploitative terms with no guarantee of
livelihood to be continued and in old age they
are going to be destituted, there being no
provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc.
There is clear contravention of constitutional
provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class.
They do have equal rights and to make them
equals they require protection and cannot be
dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment
meted out is not only bad but equally
unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have
to strike a balance to really implement the
ideology of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 16 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
(L&S) 753] . Thus, the time has come to stop the
situation where Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be
flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such
employment way back in the year 2006. The
employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be
back door entry and every post should be filled
by regular employment, but a new device has
been adopted for making appointment on
payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc
basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not
permissible when we consider the pith and
substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .
8. Coming to the facts of the instant case,
there was a direction issued way back in the
year 1999, to consider the regularisation of the
appellants. However, regularisation was not
done. The respondents chose to give minimum
of the pay scale, which was available to the
regular employees, way back in the year 2000
and by passing an order, the appellants were
also conferred temporary status in the year
2006, with retrospective effect on 2-10-2002. As
the respondents have themselves chosen to
confer a temporary status to the employees, as
such there was requirement at work and posts
were also available at the particular point of
time when order was passed. Thus, the
submission raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent that posts were not available, is
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 17 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
belied by their own action. Obviously, the order
was passed considering the long period of
services rendered by the appellants, which were
taken on exploitative terms”.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has also clearly
observed that the decision of its earlier decision in State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 was being wrongly incorporated to
deny the benefits to the persons like petitioners. Therefore, the
respondents ought to have regularized the services of the both the
petitioners in terms of the decision of the Inspector of Labour.
23. Having forced the petitioner to enter into the compromise and
thereby bind them to an order of this Court, the respondents cannot take
undue advantage in the delay on their part regularizing the services of the
petitioners with effect from the date specified in the order of the Inspector
of Labour and that petitioners are given their back wages alone. If the
services of the petitioners were regularized then and there in terms of the
decision of the Inspector of Police as modified by an order dated
18.09.2007 & 24.09.2007, the appointment of both the petitioners would
date back to end of 480th day. It is no longer open for the respondents to
state that the second respondent is outside the purview of the provisions
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 18 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status) Act, 1981.
24. That being the case, the petitioners are entitled to the
Government Pension under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1978 which makes it clear that a Government Servant appointed to
the service and post in connection with the affairs of the State which are
borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent.
25. Though the petitioners' regularizations were subsequent to the
amendment of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 vide G.O.Ms.No.259,
Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, it is to be noticed that
even after the petitioners were appointed on temporary or permanent
basis, there cannot be any denial of pension, merely because the
respondents regularized the services of the petitioners on 12.09.2008
pursuant to the orders dated 18.09.2007 and 24.09.2007 of this Court in
W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.40497,
40498 & 40500 of 2002 filed by the second respondent.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 19 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
26. Even otherwise, paragraph 45(ii) from the order dated
03.12.2019 of the Full Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil
Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department
Vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy and etc. in W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc., batch,
makes it clear that the case of the petitioners would be covered by the
provisions of the aforesaid Rules which reiterated for the sake of clarity:-
45. 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.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 20 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
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 before 01.04.2003
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.
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."
27. In Sheo Narain Nagar case referred to supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly underlined the malaise in exploitative tendency
to appoint the citizens on daily wage basis without making them
permanent employees of State Service. Following passages only need to
be reminded to the State from Paragraph 7 of the above Judgment which
has already been extracted above:-
i. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid
practice is being continued. Though this Court
has emphasised that incumbents should be
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 21 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
appointed on regular basis as per rules but new
devise of making appointment on contract basis
has been adopted, employment is offered on
daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms
ii. There is clear contravention of constitutional
provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class.
They do have equal rights and to make them
equals they require protection and cannot be
dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment
meted out is not only bad but equally
unconstitutional and is denial of rights.
iii. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be
back door entry and every post should be filled
by regular employment, but a new device has
been adopted for making appointment on
payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc
basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not
permissible when we consider the pith and
substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] .
28. It was bounden duty of the respondents State to have
regularised the services of such employees as a Welfare State. Only the
State can protect the interest of its citizen who have the misfortune of
either not getting proper education or getting suitably employed with a
decent salary. The State ought to have played a more proactive role in
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 22 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
protecting their right by regularising their services.
29. The benefit of pension to these Sanitary Workers who have
given their youth and essence of life cannot be denied as the pension of
the Government is to benefit of old, feeble and frail to support themselves
in the evening of their life. To deny pension is to deny dignity and honour
which are part of life and liberty given to them and recognised under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents is
not only arbitrary but also borders with unfair labour practice which
needs judicial intervention. This is a fit case for exercising the discretion
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 09.07.2021 of the second respondent stands quashed.
30. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in
W.P.No.21367 of 2021 with effect from 01.10.1989 and that of the
petitioner in W.P.No.21370 of 2021 with effect from 01.06.1988
notionally as per the order passed by the Inspector of Labour.
31. The respondents are also directed to grant arrears to the
respective petitioners by revising the salary with effect from 18.09.2007,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 23 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
i.e. from the expiry of the eight weeks from the orders passed in
W.P.No.40498 of 2002 and W.P.No.40495 of 2002 and grant pension,
gratuity, earned leave encashment and other terminal benefits by taking
into account the revised last drawn salary.
32. Therefore, this Writ Petitions stand allowed with the above
observations. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
15.12.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
rrg / jen
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayats
Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.
2.The Executive Officer,
Ulundurpet Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 24 of 25
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
Pre-Delivery Common Order
in
W.P.Nos.21367 & 21370 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.22615 & 22617 of 2021
15.12.2021
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 25 of 25
