Ramamoorthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 5911 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5911 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2021

Madras High Court

Ramamoorthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2021

                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 05.03.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                            W.P.(MD)Ns.21208 of 2017

                      Ramamoorthy                                          ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                      1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
                        rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
                        Forest and Environment Department,
                        Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

                      2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
                        No.1, Jennis Road,
                        Panagal Building, Saidapet,
                        Chennai-600 015.

                      3.The Wild Life Warden,
                        Grizzled Squirrel Wild Life Sanctuary,
                        Srivilliputtur,
                        Virudhunagar District.

                      4.The Social Forest Officer,
                        Social Forest Range,
                        Srivilliputtur,
                        Virudhunagar District.




                      1


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                            W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017


                      5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
                        Office of the Accountant General,
                        Annasalai, Teynampet,
                        Chennai-600 018.                                       ... Respondents
                      Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                      India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
                      count half of the service rendered by the petitioner as a Plot Watcher
                      from 01.11.1985 to 07.08.2009 along with regular service rendered by
                      the petitioner as a Overdose Plot Watcher from 07.08.2009 to 30.06.2017
                      as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and send the revised
                      proposal to the 5th respondent to grant pension with all consequential
                      monetary benefits within the stipulated period.
                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Marimuthu
                                  For R1 to R4       : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
                                                      Additional Government Pleader
                                  For R5             : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

                                                      ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the

respondents 1 to 4 to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner

as a Plot Watcher from 01.11.1985 to 07.08.2009 along with regular

service rendered by him as a Overdose Plot Watcher from 07.08.2009 to

30.06.2017 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and send the

revised proposal to the 5th respondent to grant pension with all

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017

consequential monetary benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Plot

Watcher in the Forest Department on daily wage basis and he was

continuously engaged by the respondents without any break. During the

year 2008-2009, the Forest Department has prepared a State-wide

Seniority List of Plot Watchers to appoint/promote them as Forest

Watcher in the time scale of pay. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted

as a Overdose Plot Watcher in the regular time scale of pay and

subsequently, he was retired from service in the year 2017. Further the

petitioner has averred that as per Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service

Rules, to receive pension for 10 years of net qualifying service. Rule

11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, to count half of the service

rendered by the petitioner on daily wages along with regular service at

the time of calculating the qualifying service period. Therefore, the

petitioner is eligible to receive the retirement benefits by calculating the

earlier service rendered by him on daily wages. In order to avail such

benefit, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 12.10.2017. So

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017

far no order has been passed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to count half of the

service rendered by the petitioner as a Plot Watcher from 01.11.1985 to

07.08.2009 along with regular service rendered by him as a Overdose

Plot Watcher from 07.08.2009 to 30.06.2017.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the issue that arose in the

present writ petition is no longer res integra and there are two conflicting

decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and that the

matter was referred before the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.158

of 2016 etc., Batch, dated 03.12.2019 and the above question was

answered. The person, who was firstly appointed on or after 01.04.2003,

is not entitled for pension. The relevant portion of the judgment of the

Full Bench of this Court is as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017

“4.Such a reference came to be made by the Division Bench on noticing that there are two conflicting decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court. In one of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of his Court in W.A(MD)Nos.587, 605, 606 and 1024 of 2014 on 03.12.2014, it was held that persons, who were absorbed and/or regularized to service after 01.04.2003 were not entitled to count half of the past service rendered by them for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits along with the service rendered by them after regularization. Another Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 09.09.2015, in W.A(MD)No.760 of 2013 held that such persons, whose service came to be regularized after 01.04.2003 were entitled and/or eligible to count half of the services rendered by them on daily wage basis prior to their regularization, for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. Thus, this contrary view taken by two Division Bench of this Court has led to the present reference to his Full Bench.”

5.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the

petitioner has entered into service in the year 1995 as Plot Watcher and

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.21208 of 2017

his service was regularized as Overdose Plot Watcher in the time scale of

pay in the year 2009 and thereafter, he was retired from service in the

year 2017. On a perusal of the Full Bench decision (cited supra), it is

seen that the Government Servants, who are appointed on or after

01.04.2003 are not entitled for pension. In the present case, the

petitioner's service was regularized only in the year 2009 and hence, he

was not entitled to get such a benefit. Hence, the relief sought for in the

writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is

dismissed. No costs.