T.Veerachamy vs The Secretary To Government Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13598 Mad

                                                      WP No.20785 of 2015

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                            DATED : 01-08-2022

                                    CORAM

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                            WP No.20785 of 2015



T.Veerachamy                   ..                 Petitioner

                                     vs.


1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
  Revenue Department (Pension),
  Fort St. George,
  Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Accountant General,
  No.361, Anna Salai,
  Chennai – 600 015.

3.The Assistant Director (Pension),
  Municipal Local Fund Audit Directorate,
  Kuralagam, 4th Floor,
  Chennai – 600 108.

4.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
    and Water Supply Department,
  Chepauk,
  Chennai – 600 005.


1/26
                                                                WP No.20785 of 2015



5.The Commissioner,
  Pattukottai Municipality,
  Pattukottai – 614 601.          ..                        Respondents

       Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the third respondent pertaining to his order bearing No.m/jp/K/-
491/e/x/r5/15 dated 09.03.2015 and quash the same and also directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
05.01.2015 and to grant all monetary and pensionary benefits as per the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.756, Revenue Department, dated
17.08.1993.


       For Petitioner                   : Mr.V.Venkatesan

       For Respondents-1, 3 and 4       : Ms.S.Anitha,
                                           Special Government Pleader.

       For Respondent-2                  : Mr.S.Mahesh for
                                            Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

       For Respondent-5                  : No Appearance


                                   ORDER

The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to

grant the benefit conferred in G.O.Ms.No.756, Revenue Department, dated

WP No.20785 of 2015

17.08.1993, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as 'Village

Karnam' and on abolition of the post of 'Village Karnam', he was re-appointed

as 'Village Administrative Officer' on 08.01.1991. The post of 'Village

Karnam' was abolished with effect from 14.11.1980 and the petitioner was

appointed after lapse of 11 years in the year 1991. The petitioner continued as

'Village Administrative Officer' till 31.01.1998, the date on which he reached

the age of superannuation and allowed to retire from service.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.756, Revenue Department, dated 17.08.1993

stating that the period of services rendered in the post of 'Village Karnam' is

to be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying

services for grant of pensionary benefits.

4. The post of 'Village Karnam' is a part time job. The

Government issued another order subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.756 and the said

WP No.20785 of 2015

Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated

06.07.1995 also relates to grant of regularisation to the part time temporary

Karnam (Village Assistant).

5. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the Village Assistants

were brought under the Regular Establishment. The said Government Order

issued in G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 also states

that the Village Assistants were working as part time Village Assistants. The

post of Village Assistants are governed under the Tamil Nadu Village Servant

Service Rules, 1980.

6. The petitioner made a representation to count the services of

the Village Karnam for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and the

said claim was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the post of

Village Karnam is the part time job and even counting of 50% of the services

rendered in the part time post, cannot be taken into consideration for the

purpose of reckoning the qualifying services under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil

Nadu Pension Rules.

WP No.20785 of 2015

7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of in the case of

Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department Vs.

R.Kaliyamoorthy passed in W.A.No.158 of 2016, etc., batch delivered a

judgement on 03.12.2019, upholding the validity of amended Rule 11(4) of

the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and as per the said Rules, the part time

job cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating 50% of

the services for grant of pensionary benefits and the said judgement reads as

under:-

“45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows:

i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003.

ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

iii) In case, a Government employee/servant had also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularised before 01.04.2003,

WP No.20785 of 2015

half of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits.

iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension."

(v) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.”

8. The Hon'ble Full Bench held that the amended Rule 11 (4) is

upheld and the said Rule is to be followed scrupulously in its letter and spirit.

Thus, the Rule, as it is, should be implemented for the purpose of extending

the benefit of counting 50% of the services and all other earlier Judgements

granting benefits contrary to the spirit of Rule 11 cannot be relied on as

precedent for the purpose of granting any further relief. Thus, the Full Bench

Judgement is to be followed as a precedent and more specifically Rule 11

which contemplates qualifying service, is to be followed in its letter and spirit

for the purpose of extending the benefit of counting 50% of the services to the

WP No.20785 of 2015

eligible employees for granting pensionary benefits.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf

of respondents 1, 3 and 4 relied on the counter statements filed by the

respondents and contended that the Judgements of the Division Bench relied

on by the learned counsel for the petitioner were passed in the years 2016 and

2018 and subsequent to those Judgements, another Division Bench of this

Court, in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos.1629 of 2018, etc.,

elaborately considered the principles and allowed the Writ Appeals on

26.02.2021, which reveals the subject as a whole, more specifically, with

reference to the services of the part-time Panchayat Clerks. The learned

Special Government Pleader relied on the following paragraphs of the

Judgement of the Division Bench, which reads as under:-

"20. Much reliance has been made to Rule 11(a) read with Rule 2(o) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. These Rules are not applicable to the services of Talaiyaris, being in non~pensionable establishment and part~time and that too not in a cadre post. As per Rule 11(4), there must be whole~time employment. Similarly, there shall not be any break, which is in existence. Insofar as the other set of

WP No.20785 of 2015

employees are concerned, viz., Village Officers (Karnams), we may appropriately quote Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. Even as per Rule 16 of the said Rules, the post of Talaiyari being~non pensionable, they are not entitled.

21. We are quite convinced with the entitlement of the respondents in the light of the discussions made. Our above said conclusion is also strengthened by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in 2019(6) CTC 705, which could be seen through the following paragraphs:~ "29. Having regard to the above rule position, we proceed to examine the claim of the writ petitioners. Admittedly, the writ petitioners herein were appointed in various departments of the Government in non~provincialised services, on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wage basis, on contingency basis. They were not appointed against any sanctioned post or regular post. For having rendered such service, they were paid daily wage or wages from the contingency fund. To be specific, the writ petitioners were not appointed in a cadre post whether on temporary or permanent basis against vacancies which were duly notified. They were appointed on daily wage basis prior to 01.04.2003 on various dates. The service of some of the petitioners were also admittedly regularised after 01.04.2003 in a cadre post as and when permanent vacancies arose or had been notified.

WP No.20785 of 2015

The writ petitioners therefore claimed that they are entitled to count half of the service rendered by them on daily wage basis or as contingent employees or on honorarium basis or in non~provincialised services etc. along with the regular service as has been contemplated under Rule 11 (4). The petitioners also claimed equity on par with one Murugan, in whose favour, the Government passed G.O. (D) No.332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 by which the service rendered by the said Murugan, on daily wage basis for about 20 years was ordered to be counted along with his regular service rendered by him till his retirement on 30.09.2005. In other words, even though the service of the said Murugan was regularised after 01.04.2003, yet, as a special case, the Government issued G.O. (D) No.332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 and ordered to count half of the service rendered by him on daily wage basis along with his regular service. This had apparently sparked and/or kick~started a volley of writ petitions to be filed before this Court at the instance of persons similarly placed like the writ petitioners in this batch. This Court had also, based on the order passed by the Government in G.O. (D) No.332, Environment and Forest Department dated 19.11.2008 directed the Government to count half of the service rendered by the persons similarly placed like the petitioners along with their regular service, purportedly on the ground of equity. The State Government filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, as against few cases in which such directions were issued by the single Bench.

WP No.20785 of 2015

...

31. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the writ petitioners have been temporarily employed with nomenclature such as daily wage employees, on consolidated pay or on honorarium basis etc. and as per Rule 11 (1) the service rendered by them in such temporary employment has to be counted along with the regular service in a cadre post. We wish to observe that the word temporary or officiating service employed in Rule 11 (1) is referable to

-temporary appointment- contemplated under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. On a reading of Rule 10 (a) (i), the wordings employed thereof are explicit and clear. A temporary appointment made to a government service is the one which is made in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category, meaning thereby such temporary appointment is made in an existing vacancy or notified vacancy. Rule 10 (a) (i) further makes the position clear that such appointment is permissible to be made by the appointing authority in case of emergency to fill the vacancy, in public interest. For such appointment, the appointing authority has to form an opinion that the procedural process for appointment to the cadre post will take some time and that such delay would prejudice the public interest. In such circumstances, Rule 10 (a) (i) can be invoked for appointing a candidate on temporary appointment in a sanctioned post. The service of such person, though appointed on temporary appointment can later be regularised by following the due procedure. The significance

WP No.20785 of 2015

for invoking Rule 10 (a) (i), apart from public interest, is the existence of sanctioned post or vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category. Thus, Rule 10 (a) (i) cannot be invoked in the absence of an existing vacancy in a cadre post. Therefore, we are of the view that the temporary appointment mentioned in Rule 11 of the Pension Rules, in the realm of Service Law Jurisprudence, is referable only to Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The writ petitioners were however appointed on daily wage basis on payment of honorarium or consolidated pay and did not come within the fold of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Only the appointments made under the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the aforesaid Rules alone can be considered as temporary appointment.

Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners relying upon Rule 3 (o) has to be rejected. Admittedly the Writ Petitioners were not appointed invoking Rule 10(a)(i).

.....

34. Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 confers an additional benefit to such class of Government servants to include half of the service rendered in the above capacity for determining qualifying service provided their service was regularised before 01.04.2003. Rule 11 (4) by itself is not intended to deny pension to respondents/writ petitioners if appointment was prior to 01.04.2003 in the cadre post, whether temporary or permanent.

35. Rule 11 (4) merely provides a method

WP No.20785 of 2015

for determining the ? qualifying service? for government employees who were absorbed into service before cut~off date of 01.04.2003.

36. The significance of Rule 11 (4) is to bring the service of a government employee / servant within the realm of qualifying service to count half of the service rendered under the State Government in non~provisionalised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis before 1st April 2003 for retirement benefits, if the absorption to service was before 01.04.2003.

37. Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 allows a Government employee / servant appointed in a cadre post before 01.04.2003 as per the Rules whether in temporary or permanent capacity to include 50% of the service rendered in (i) non~provincialised services; (ii) Consolidated pay; (iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis along with regular service subject to conditions stipulated therein.

38. For instance if a government employee/servant was appointed and absorbed between the cut off dates i.e. 01.01.1961 and 01.04.2003, then he/she will be entitled to include half of the service rendered under the State Government in (i) non~provincialised services;

(ii) Consolidated pay; (iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis into his/her services for determination of qualifying service.

39. On the other hand, if a Government employee / servant was not absorbed between the

WP No.20785 of 2015

aforesaid cut off dates, he/she will not be entitled to include half of the service rendered under the State Government in (i) non~provincialised services; (ii) Consolidated pay; (iii) honorarium; or (iv) daily wage basis into his/her services even though such person may be entitled to Government Pension under the Rule if he/she was appointed in a cadre post on or before 01.04.2003 but was absorbed after the said date.

40. For example, if a person is appointed prior to 01.04.2003 in a non~provincialised service or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and later to a cadre post on temporary basis under Rule 10 (a) (i) of The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and such service is regularised after 01/04/2003, such Government employee is eligible for Government Pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules but at the same time would not be eligible to include half of services rendered in such capacity viz., i) Non~provincialised Services ii) Consolidated pay; iii) honorarium; or

iv) daily wage basis to his regular service.

41. Thus, a government servant who may have been appointed before the cut~off date of 31.03.2003 may be entitled to government pension if he satisfies the requirement of qualifying service in Rule 3(o) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. However, such a person will not be entitled to add half of the past service held in any one of the four capacity mentioned above prior to 01.04.2003 since his regularisation is subsequent to the cut off date. Therefore, only those who were appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether as

WP No.20785 of 2015

temporary appointment but in accordance with Rule 10 (a) (i) alone will be entitled to get pension.

42. The cut off date i.e. on or after 01.04.2003 in proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will not per se bar a person from getting pension if such a person had joined the service in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules i.e in the cadre whether on temporary or permanent basis. Services rendered before the cut off date of 01.04.2003, can be added to the regular service only if the service was regularised before the said date for determining the qualifying service. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to say that Rule 11 (4) gives the meaning of qualifying service rather than giving significance to cut off date. Therefore, it is clear that only if the appointment is in accordance with the Rules and such appointment is prior to 01.04.2003, 50% of the past service can be added along with the regular service.

.....

44. The aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court would squarely apply to this case. Merely because this Court has passed multiple number of orders in favour of some of the similarly placed persons like the writ petitioners, it will not operate as res judicata or it will preclude theState Government from questioning those orders in a parallel or similar proceedings. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the orders, hitherto passed by this Court, both single Bench or the Division Bench

WP No.20785 of 2015

will not operate as a bar for maintaining these writ appeals or writ petitions or those orders will not be considered as the one which laid down any binding precedent to be followed in other cases. An order, which was not passed in accordance with the statutory provisions, need not be followed by the Court at the instance of similarly placed persons."

The sum and substance of the decision rendered, which in our view, is that a Government Servant is entitled for reckoning the half of the past services, even while working in non~provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis only when there exists a cadre post. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, merely facilitate the reckoning of the past services of a Government servants subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

..............

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

WP No.20785 of 2015

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."

10. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf

of respondents 1, 3 and 4 further made a submission that the aforesaid

Judgement of the Division Bench was followed by a learned single Judge in

W.P.Nos.6862 and 6855 of 2022, dated 08.04.2022. Thus, the said

Judgement of the Division Bench issued, relying on the Judgement of the

Hon'ble Full Bench, is to be followed in this Writ Petition.

11. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner

was appointed as Village Karnam and on abolition of the said post, he was

relieved from the post on 14.11.1980. The petitioner was re-appointed as

Village Administrative Officer on 08.01.1991 and retired from service on

31.01.1998. Therefore, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service

WP No.20785 of 2015

for the purpose of grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,

1978. The Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner cannot be now

considered in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, wherein

the nature of job responsibilities attached to the post of Village Karnam was

considered as part time and Rule 11(4) of the Rules, is also upheld. Thus, the

petitioner is not entitled for counting of the services as Village Karnam for the

purpose of reckoning the qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits.

12. Considering the Judgements referred in the aforementioned

paragraphs, it is clear that the judgements of the Division Benches passed

during the years 2016 and 2018 were over-ruled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of

this Court in the case R.Kaliyamoorthy (cited supra). Thus, the Judgement

of the Hon'ble Full Bench is to be followed for the purpose of extending the

benefit of Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules.

13. Even regarding the application of equality clause under

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others vs. Bachan

WP No.20785 of 2015

Singh [(2009) 14 SCC 793] held that "in other words, the Supreme Court

applied Article 14 only after finding that the employee was actually entitled in

law for the benefit that he was seeking. The Supreme Court did not apply

Article 14 blindfold, merely because other similarly placed employees got a

benefit. Therefore, the Court has a duty before invoking Article 14 to see

whether the employee is entitled to the benefit he was seeking".

14. The normal Rule is that when a particular set of employees is

given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be

treated alike by extending the benefit. Not doing so would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the

form of delays and laches as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did

not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same

and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their

counterparts, who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their

efforts, then such employees cannot claim the benefit of the Judgement

rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They

WP No.20785 of 2015

would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delay, and/or the

acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

15. The above principle reiterated in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Aravind Kumar Shrivastava [2015 (1) SCC 347], is to be

applied only to cases where the employees are legitimately entitled to some

benefits but it was denied to them either wrongly or on a wrong interpretation

of the Rules/Circulars.

16. Thus, Courts are bound to independently consider the fair

circumstances and the applications of statutes and rules even in respect of the

persons claiming similar benefits. Thus, the principles laid down in Aravind

Kumar Shrivastava (cited supra) could be invoked only in two types of

cases namely (1) cases of wrongful denial of a rightful benefits, or (2) cases

of wrongful denial of a doubtful benefit. They cannot be applied to a rightful

denial of a benefit, which is not due to them.

17. No doubt, consistency helps the parties to a litigation to

WP No.20785 of 2015

know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that

on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees have

obtained orders on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision

of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a

benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes

and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public

interest.

18. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its

courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than

discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in

A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]. It was observed in the

said decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar

the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the

Court." The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no

party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court

should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles

of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the

WP No.20785 of 2015

State (1) by Writ Petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission, and (2)

by getting those Orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is

especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases,

did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special

Grades. There could be no equality in illegality. An illegality will not undergo

a metamorphosis and become legal, merely because it received the seal of

approval of a Court of law. Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot

be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been

committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong

order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the

jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the

same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong orders.

19. In similar circumstances, in the case of P.Singaravelan and

others vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur [(2020) 3 SCC 133], the

Hon'be Supreme Held as follows:-

"7. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear that there has been no pronouncement by this Court

WP No.20785 of 2015

constituting the law of the land as to the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.162. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants herein.

........

24. Thus, it is evident that the Appellants cannot claim the Selection Grade and Special Grade Scales of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitled to such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, we are of the considered view that the Appellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which they are lawfully entitled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.162, i.e. Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively."

20. Keeping in mind the principles and the judgements

elaborately discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the admitted fact in

the case on hand is that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Village

Karnam and subsequently appointed as Village Administrative Officer and

WP No.20785 of 2015

thereafter as Junior Assistant on regular basis and retired from services. It is

further admitted that the regular services rendered by the petitioner was

already taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of pensionary

benefits and he had received all such benefits. The grievance is that 50% of

the part-time Village Karnam services were not taken into consideration, for

the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for grant of pensionary

benefits.

21. Rule 11(2)(i) of the Pension Rules contemplates that half of

the services shall be counted only in a job involving whole time employment

and not part-time. In the present case, even in the affidavit filed in support of

the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as part-time

Village Karnam. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court also held that Rule 11

is to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of extending the benefit of

counting 50% of the services to the temporary/daily wages/consolidated pay

employees.

22. This being the factum established, the judgements relied on

WP No.20785 of 2015

by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to them, as the

Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the

Pension Rules is to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50%

of the services rendered by the employees. After the Full Bench Judgement,

another Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court, in a batch of

Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos.1629 of 2018, etc., delivered the judgement

on 26.02.2021, dismissing all the Writ Appeals filed by the part-time

Panchayat Clerks seeking the benefit of counting 50% of the services.

23. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that even

based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Full Bench and the subsequent

Judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench and independently applying the

principles to be followed in such circumstances by the Court, as discussed

above, the relief as such sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted.

24. Beyond all the judgements referred above, as emphasized by

the Apex Court of India, Article 14 is to be applied only if the claim is in

accordance with law, but not otherwise. Thus, on independent application of

WP No.20785 of 2015

facts and applying the principles of law to be followed and therefore, the case

of the writ petitioner fails.

25. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

01-08-2022

Index : Yes/No.

Internet : Yes/No.

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.

Svn

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

To

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department (Pension), Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Accountant General, No.361, Anna Salai,

WP No.20785 of 2015

Chennai – 600 015.

3.The Assistant Director (Pension), Municipal Local Fund Audit Directorate, Kuralagam, 4th Floor, Chennai – 600 108.

4.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

5.The Commissioner, Pattukottai Municipality, Pattukottai – 614 601. WP 20785 of 2015

01-08-2022