Madras High Court
P.Krishnan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 July, 2021
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :29.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
P.Krishnan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development &
Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E)
Tamil Nadu,
No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count 50%
services rendered by the petitioner in the post of part time Panchayat clerk
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
from 01.10.1967 till 10.02.1995 for the purpose of granting pension along
with regular service from 11.02.1995 till 30.06.2007 in accordance with the
directions given in Para 46(iii) of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of
this Court in Writ Appeal No.158/2016 etc., dated 03.12.2019.
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Hemalatha
For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Counsel
For R4 : M/s.T.S.Selvarani
Standing Counsel
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein had originally served as part time
Panchayat clerk from 01.10.1967 to 10.02.1995. The claim of the petitioner
is that 50% of his services for the aforesaid period, requires to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of grant of pension along with his regular
service.
3. The aforesaid issue has come up for consideration in batch of
writ petitions before this Court in W.P.No.19264 of 2014 etc., and orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
passed therein, including the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench and this
Court had held therein that the 50% services of said part time Panchayat
clerk, can be included for the purpose of calculating the grant of pension.
One such order passed by this Court in the case of A.Khadar vs. The
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Department and others, passed in W.P.No.10865 of 2019 dated 15.07.2021,
reads as follows:
“2. The petitioner herein had rendered services
under the respondents herein as a Part Time Panchayat Clerk
from 01.09.1981 to 31.12.1990. The grievance of the petitioner
is that 50% of his services rendered in the post of Part Time
Panchayat Clerk was taken into consideration for the purpose
of computing grant of pension and therefore, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order requires
to be set aside. In support of her contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue with regard
to the eligibility to take into account the earlier services of the
Part Time Panchayat Clerk came up for consideration in a
batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.19264 of 2014, etc. and by
order dated 30.06.2014, it was held that, 50% of the past
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
services of the Part Time Panchayat Clerk has to be taken for
the purpose of computing the total period of services for the
pensionary benefits. It is also her contention that the order of
the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions came to
be affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.191 of 2016 dated 23.02.2016. A similar view was
taken by the other Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.612 of 2016 dated 24.06.2016 and W.A.No.745 of 2019
dated 11.03.2019.
3. The orders of the learned Single Judge, as
confirmed by the Division Benches, has also been implemented
by the first respondent herein and one such order of
implementation is in G.O.Ms.No.111 Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (PA5) Department, dated 14.03.2016. The
aforesaid proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge as
well as the Hon'ble Division Bench squarely applies to the facts
of the present case. As such, the petitioner herein is entitled to
succeed.”
4. Since, the petitioner is similarly placed, as that of the petitioner
in the aforesaid case, he would also be entitled for the same relief.
Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to count
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
50% of the services rendered by the petitioner in the post of part time
Panchayat clerk along with 50% services already taken for the purpose of
granting pension, together with his regular service and consequently, revise
the petitioner's pension. Such an exercise shall be completed atleast within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
29.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / non-speaking order
Pns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Pns
To
1. Principal Secretary to Government,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development &
Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E)
Tamil Nadu,
No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018.
W.P.No.9252 of 2020
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
