Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs M.Gunasekaran on 7 October, 2021
1 W.A.No.2560 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.2560 of 2021
and
CMP.No.16644 of 2021
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Tr-II) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport Department (H2),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Appellants
Vs.
M.Gunasekaran ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.08.2017 made in
W.P.No.26883 of 2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.A.No.2560 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.K.T.S. Tippu Sultan
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.C.V.Ramachandra Murthy
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated
18.08.2017 made in W.P. No.26883 of 2014.
2. The appellant has raised a sole ground that in terms of Rule 41
of The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules [Now Section 49 of
the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2016], the past services will have to be ignored for the
purpose of counting to extend the benefits of pensionary benefits. The
appellant would like to hope upon the proviso to clause No.25 of Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules 1947 which is extracted below:-
25. Condonation of interruption in service:- (1) In the
absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service
book, an interruption between two spells of Civil Service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rendered by a Government servant shall be treated as
automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated
as qualifying service.
(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to interruption
caused by resignation, (or) removal from service or for
participation in strike.
(3) The period of interruption referred to sub-rule (1)
shall not count as qualifying service.
3. It is no doubt true that if an employee resigns from service, he may
not be entitled to get any relief, but the intention of the Government will have
to be taken into account while looking at the ground for resignation. The
respondent/writ petition has submitted his resignation with a view to take up
the employment in Government and the other Government services which has
not been in dispute. The learned single Judge has also observed that the
respondents are unable to produce any files to prove the contrary. Hence the
resignation would mean that he would not in employment once again in the
same organisation. When the employee resigns from service without any
condonation he will forfeit his entire service for the purpose of pensionary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
benefit under Rule 23 Tamil Nadu Pension Rules which is extracted below:-
"Forfeiture of service on resignation:- (1) Resignation from a service
or post entails forfeiture of past service.
Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service
if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another
appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government
where service qualifies.
(2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-
rule (1) due to the two appointments being at different stations, not
exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be
covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government Servant on the
date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is
not covered by leave due to the Government Servant".
4. The reliance placed by the appellant in a decision dated 27.03.2019
in W.A.No.1793 of 2018 may not be applicable to the facts of the present
case as it dealt with a case of forfeiture of services. We have no quarrel over
the said decision as the rule is very clear that there will be forfeiture of
service on resignation but that is not the case here.
5. Firstly, the intention to take up the employment in other Government
service has not been contradicted by the material documents before this Court
by the appellant. Secondly, the intention of the writ petitioner appears to take
up a Government job in other place in order to enable the past service
rendered. Hence we are of the view that the learned single Judge observation
that the order impugned in the writ petition has been interfered with and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government will have to count the entire service rendered in Motor Vehicle
Maintenance Organisation from 15.05.1979 to 18.01.1986 for the purpose of
paying pensionary benefit cannot be interfered with. We find no reason to
interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also
closed.
(S.V.N.J.,) (A.A.N.J.,)
07.10.2021
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Tr-II) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport Department (H2),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
dpq
W.A.No.2560 of 2021
and
CMP.No.16644 of 2021
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
