Madras High Court
I.Shanthi vs The Principal Secretary To on 5 April, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
and WMP(MD) No.1397 of 2021
I.Shanthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 3 rd
respondent vide Na.Ka.No.6904/2020/Vu.Vaa3 order dated 23.10.2020
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to count
the service rendered by the petitioner's husband in the post of part time
panchayat clerks for the purpose of pension and other benefits together
with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Nedunchezian
Government Advocate
ORDER
The husband of the writ petitioner was working as part time
panchayat clerk. Subsequently his services were regularised and brought
under the regular establishment.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the part time service
rendered by her husband in the post of Panchayat Clerk was not taken
into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for
grant of pensionary benefits. The petitioner made an application before
the authority and the District Collector rejected the claim on the ground
that the husband of the writ petitioner was appointed as part time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
Panchayat Clerk and thereafter he was absorbed as Panchayat Assistant
and served till 05.04.1995. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of
Junior Assistant. However, the husband of the writ petitioner was
appointed as part time Panchayat Clerk.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
part time services were also taken into consideration in respect of some
other cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.1111/2016
dated 22.03.2018. In the said judgment, the 50% of the part time
services were taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating
pension for grant of pensionary benefits. Therefore, the said benefits is
to be extended to the husband of the writ petitioner for revision of
pension and pensionary benefits.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission
that the affidavit itself is vague and bereft of service particulars of the
husband of the writ petitioner. Further, the husband of the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
was appointed as part time Panchayat Clerk and for such time period, the
petitioner is not eligible for counting 50% of the services.
5. Considering the arguments, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated
22.03.2018 cited supra was overruled, as the issues were referred before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court and batch of writ
appeals and writ petitions were decided by the Full Bench of this Court,
in Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported
in 2019 (6) CTC 705. The Hon'ble Full Bench answered the references
by holding that the 50% of the services are to be counted in accordance
with the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and
the eligibility of the employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 was also
taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court has to consider Rule
11(4) of the Rules for the purpose of extending the benefit of counting of
50% of the part time services. Rule11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules reads as under:
“11(4)....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
(i) Service rendered in non-provincialised service,
consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall
be in a job involving whole time employment;
(ii) Service rendered shall be on consolidated pay,
honorarium or daily wages basis paid on monthly basis
and subsequently absorbed in regular service under the
State Government.
(iii) Service rendered in non-provincialised
service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages
basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service
before 1st April 2003 without a break.
Provided that this sub-rule is applicable to all
employees, who rendered service under the State
Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated
pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st
January 1961 and absorbed in regualr service before 1st
April 2003.
Provided further that wherever there was break in
service before their absorption in regular service before
1st April 2003, the same shall be specifically condoned
by the orders of the Head of departments, in which the
employees were regularly absorbed and such period of
break, shall not count for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.]”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
6.Rule 11(4) unambiguously stipulates that the job must be whole
time employment. Therefore, the temporary employees appointed for
whole time job alone are entitled for counting of 50% of their services.
The part time employment cannot be considered for counting of the
service as per Rule 11(4) of the Rules. Thus, the Division Bench
judgment cannot be followed, as it was overruled by the Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court and further Rule 11(4) also categorically enumerates
that the temporary employees appointed in full time employment are
alone eligible for counting of 50% of their services for the purpose of
reckoning the required service for grant of pensionary benefits.
7. In the present case, the husband of the writ petitioner admittedly
was appointed as part time panchayat clerk and therefore, 50% of the
services cannot be taken into consideration. As per Rule 11(4) of the
Rules, the husband of the writ petitioner would be eligible for the
benefits only in respect of the service rendered as full time and therefore,
there is no infirmity in rejecting the request of the petitioner and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
order of rejection passed by the respondents is in consonance with the
Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
RR
To
1.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.1654 of 2021
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
