Madras High Court
For vs Unknown on 14 July, 2021
W.A.No.182 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.182 of 2018
and CMP No.1260 of 2018
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
Forest Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
cum Deputy Director,
Pollachi Forest Division,
Anaimalai Tiger Reserve,
Pollachi.
4. The Accountant General,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
.... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letter Patents Act, filed praying
to set aside the final order dated 03.09.2014 in W.P.No.5047 of 2014 passed by
the learned Single Judge.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.182 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(delivered by MRS.PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,)
The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.5047 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014.
2. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not entered appearance
either in person or through counsel.
3. Learned State Government Counsel points out that though in many
matters, where services were regularised and 50% of the services rendered by
the persons were ordered to be counted for the purpose of pension, in this case,
it may not be possible.
4. A perusal of the bio-data Sheet produced before this Court shows that
the writ petitioner, V.Manickam had served as Forest Watcher from 01.11.1984
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.182 of 2018
to 30.09.1985 for eleven (11) months and once again, from 01.12.1985 to
11.09.1989 for a period of four years nine months and ten days (4 years, 9
months and 10 days). He was not engaged thereafter by the Department.
However, his services were regularised on 27.06.2011 on a supernumerary post
and he retired on 31.12.2013 after putting in a service of two years and six
months (2 years and 6 months). Considering the total qualifying service for the
purpose of pension, it is only four years and ten months (4 years and 10
months) that is available to the credit of the writ petitioner, he does not have
the qualifying service for the grant of pension. Hence, the writ petitioner is not
entitled for the same.
5. Even, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State
of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government and others vs
R.Kaliyamoorthy, (2019) 6 CTC 705, where it has been specifically held that
those who are appointed on or before 01.04.2003, but regularised only after the
said cut-off date, are not entitled for the pensionary benefits. The relevant
portion reads as follows:
" 45. In the light of the above, we answer the
reference as follows:-
i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.182 of 2018
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.182 of 2018
entitled to count half of their past service for the
purse 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."
7. In view of the above, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the benefits
sought for. The appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the writ appeal
is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N.J.,) (K.R.J.,)
14.07.2021
sr
Index:yes/no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.182 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,
sr
W.A.No.182 of 2018
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
