Madras High Court
Ramalakshmi vs The Accountant General (A&E) on 8 September, 2021
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.19925 of 2020
Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Accountant General (A&E)
Pension,
391, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvenkadam Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent
to sanction the pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband namely
P.Veeraputhiran to the petitioner from his retirement by calculating the
petitioner's husband's service from his original date of appointment on
01.09.1974 with arrears in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of
(A.P.Srivastava Vs Union of India and others) reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 241
and on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan
For Respondents : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi,
Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.A.K.Manickam,
learned counsel for R2 to R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to sanction the pensionary benefits of
the petitioner's husband namely P.Veeraputhiran to the petitioner from the date
of his retirement by calculating the petitioner's husband's services from his
original date of appointment on 01.09.1974 with arrears, in the light of
judgment of this Court in the case of "A.P.Srivastava Vs Union of India and
others" reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 241 and on the basis of the petitioner's
representation dated 03.11.2020.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. According to the petitioner, her husband Late Veeraputhiran was appointed
as Village Assistant on 01.09.1974 and later on 01.06.1995, his service was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
regularized and after his retirement, he was receiving pension at Rs.150/- per
month. Later, he died on 07.01.2020. The petitioner made representation dated
03.11.2020 to the respondents, seeking to grant pension by taking into
consideration the services rendered by her husband from the date of his original
appointment, i.e., 01.09.1974. The petitioner relied upon a decision reported in
“A.P.Srivastha versus Union of India and others” reported in 1996(1) LLJ 241.
Since no action is forthcoming despite her representation, the petitioner has
come forward with the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make
submission that, admittedly, the petitioner's husband was appointed as Village
Assistant long years back and after having rendered several years of service, his
service was regularized from 01.06.1995, by bringing him under time scale of
pay. He submitted that though the service of the petitioner was regularized with
effect from 01.06.1995, considering the nature of the job of the Village
Assistant which is full time, at least for the pensionary benefits, his past
services shall be taken into account.
6.A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Paragraph
no.4 of the said counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
''4.It is submitted at the outset that the services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
rendered by Sri Veeraputhiran if any, for the period from
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
01.09.1974 to 31.05.1995 would have to be treated as part-
time service which cannot be taken into account as qualifying
service as has been held by the detailed order dated
26.02.2021 of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of
the Madras High Court in the case of W.A.(MD) No.1629 of
2018 and batch. Deliberating elaborately on the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and G.O.No.9 dated
28.02.2006(Tamilnadu Village Assistant Pension Rules) as
also the various judgments in similar cases of the past, the
High Court has decisively concluded that service rendered by
Village Assistants prior to 01.06.1995 have to be treated as
part-time service and 50% of the same cannot be counted as
qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Thus, the matter has been settled at rest by the Division
Bench's recent order dated 26.02.2021''.
7. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
would submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer
res integra since it has been settled by a recent judgment of Division Bench of
this Court reported in (2021) 3 MLJ page 92 (State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and Others
Vs. E.Balachandran) in WA.(MD) No.1629 of 2018, wherein, on consideration
the relevant Rules as well as the decisions of the Apex Court, and relying upon
the relevant provisions under Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978,
the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Appeals preferred by the
Government setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
Relevant paragraph nos.26 and 27 are extracted as under:
"26. Having considered the entire issues involved, we
also find that there is no application of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India by comparing the respondents with those
who got the relief albeit without taking note of the relevant
provisions of law. Granting the relief would amount to setting
aside two pension Rules without even a challenge especially
when the respondents got the benefit of regular employment
and permanent posts under the subsequent orders passed, on
their request.
"27. In the result, the appeals filed by the Government
of Tamil Nadu stand allowed by setting aside the orders passed
by the learned Single Judge and consequently, the appeal filed
by the Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) No. 831 of 2020 stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed."
8. In the light of the aforesaid decision cited supra, there is no merits
in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
dn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Accountant General (A&E)
Pension,
391, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Thasildar,
Thiruvenkadam Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Thasildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No19925 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
dn
W.P(MD)No.19925 of 2020
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
