Madras High Court
A.Savarimuthu vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2022
WP.No.2426 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
WP.No.2426 of 2018
A.Savarimuthu .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire
records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in Government
Letter No.42390/Pani-8(2)/2016-5 dated 29.08.2017, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to grant minimum pension to the
petitioner in the post of Village Administrative Officer in the light of the
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
order dated 28.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20747 of 2008 and
26540 of 2008 with all consequential monetary benefits within a period that
may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani
For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus,
to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Government Letter
No.42390/Pani-8(2)/2016-5 dated 29.08.2017 and consequently direct the
respondents to grant minimum pension to the petitioner in the post of
Village Administrative Officer in the light of the order dated 28.11.2008
passed by this Court in W.P.No.20747 of 2008 and 26540 of 2008 with all
consequential monetary benefits within a period that may be stipulated by
this Court.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Village Karnam in the Revenue
Department by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai on 16.11.1978.
In that capacity, he was working for eight months and since it was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
temporary appointment, for want of vacancy or otherwise he lost the job on
17.07.1979. Subsequently, before the petitioner get reappointment on the
basis of causing the vacancy, the State Government promulgated an
Ordinance called Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.10/1980 which was
subsequently replaced by an Act under which those Village Officers like
Munsif or Karnam or Headman who were on the job on the date of
Ordinance, i.e. on 14.11.1980 would be ousted at one stroke. Accordingly,
thousands of such Village Munsif or Karnam who were on service as on
14.11.1980 lost their job.
3.Though a long legal battle was undertaken by those who lost the
job, ultimately it ended in favour of the Government.
4.Subsequently, in replacing the post of Village Munsif or Karnam,
the Government thought it fit to bring a post called Village Administrative
Officer [VAO], for which the minimum educational qualification was
S.S.L.C. And the recruitments were made through recruiting agency to fill
up the post of Village Administrative Officer created in lieu of Village
Munsif or Karnam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
5.In this context, those who lost the job on 14.11.1980 as stated supra
made a plea before the Government for re-employment and in this context,
as per the orders of the Court those who become qualified or already been
qualified to hold the post of Village Administrative Officer were re-
appointed by conducting limited qualifying examination and accordingly,
several such persons were re-employed in later years of 1980 and some of
them have been given such postings of VAO in 1990s also.
6.Still some of the persons though were qualified to hold the post of
VAO were not given the post of VAO and therefore, in respect of those
candidates, such appointments were given after 2000 also.
7.It is in this context, the petitioner since has qualified with S.S.L.C.
in the year 1963 itself, he was kept in a waiting list and subsequently he was
considered for appointment as VAO and he was re-appointed as Village
Administrative Officer on 26.04.2001. He was working in that capacity
upto 31.05.2004 and on that date, because of superannuation he retired from
service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
8.In this context, it is to be noted that those who lost the job of
Village Munsif and Karnam as on 14.11.1980, subsequently was re-
appointed as VAO and after retirement in such post of VAO where if they
have not completed 10 years of minimum service to become qualified to get
minimum pension under the Pension Rules were not given pension.
9.Therefore, a huge plea was made by these people who worked for
less than 10 years in the re-appointed VAO post as they could not get even
the minimum pension. The plea was accepted by the Government.
Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.756 Revenue Department dated 17.08.1993 was
issued under which those who lost the job on 14.11.1980 because of
Ordinance and subsequently was re-appointed as VAO and who retired from
service on superannuation but not having the minimum qualifying service of
10 years, their service instead of being calculated from the date of
re-appointment can be calculated from 14.11.1980 and accordingly their
minimum qualifying service can be taken into account for the purpose of
sanctioning the minimum pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
10.Several such persons under G.O.Ms.No.756 Revenue Department
dated 17.08.1993 were benefited.
11.The said benefit have been further extended for another set of
people by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.148 Revenue Department dated
20.04.2011.
12.Following these two Government Orders, still some more people
who lost the job on 14.11.1980 and got re-appointed some time in 2000 or
thereafter and who also since did not have the minimum qualifying service
of 10 years, the benefit as has been already given under G.O.Ms.No.756
dated 17.08.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 20.04.2011 was to be extended
to these people also, accordingly the Government has come forward to issue
G.O.Ms.No.158 Revenue Department dated 08.04.2015, under which 184
such people have been benefited in favour whom Rule 43 of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules 1978 was relaxed to get minimum pension by taking into
account of their service rendered in the re-appointed post of VAO as well
as the period from 14.11.1980 put together.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
13.In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
also lost the job by 14.11.1980 Ordinance and subsequently was re-
appointed on 26.04.2001 and because of superannuation retired from
service on 31.05.2004, therefore he did not have the 10 years minimum
qualifying service in the re-appointed post. Therefore, qualifying the
service with effect from 14.11.1980, the petitioner also shall be treated as
one among the beneficiaries to be extended the benefit of minimum
qualifying pension as has been provided to several people covered under
G.O.Ms.No.756 dated 17.08.1993, G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 20.04.2011 and
G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015.
14.When such a request was made by the petitioner to the respondents
which was considered and turned out by the order of the first respondent
dated 29.08.2017 where they have stated that the benefit extended to others
cannot be extended to the petitioner and accordingly, it was rejected.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
15.Relying upon the aforestated Government Orders, Mr.S.Mani,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would canvass the point that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
petitioner is also similarly placed like several other person among 184, who
are the beneficiaries now under G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015, therefore
such a benefit can very well be extended to the petitioner by taking the
combined services in the re-appointed post of VAO as well as the period
from 14.11.1980 to the petitioner also for calculating the minimum
pensionable service for the purpose of sanctioning the minimum pension.
16.However, Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in all
the Government Orders referred above, one point that was made clear by the
Government was that those who lost the job on 14.11.1980 and
subsequently got re-appointed as VAO and in that capacity they retired on
superannuation without earning the minimum qualifying service of 10 years,
only for those persons in order to get the benefit of minimum pension the
period from 14.11.1980 was directed to be calculated along with the
services rendered by them in the re-appointed post of VAO and accordingly
the minimum pension can be sanctioned to them. Accordingly, minimum
pension was sanctioned to several people covered under the said
Government Orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
17.Here in the case on hand, according to the learned Additional
Government Pleader the petitioner was in the job of Village Karnam on
temporary basis with effect from 16.11.1978 till 17.07.1979, i.e about either
months only.
18.Thereafter, he was never appointed or never engaged either
temporarily or on permanent basis in the post of Village Munsif or Karnam
before 14.11.1980.
19.Therefore, according to the learned Additional Government
Pleader it has become clear that on 14.11.1980 the petitioner did not hold
the post of Ex-Village Munsif or Karnam and he was not the person who
lost the job by virtue of the Ordinance dated 14.11.1980. When that being
so, the benefit extended to the other persons under the Government Orders
referred above cannot be extended to the petitioner because those persons
who lost the job on 14.11.1980 alone are entitled to get the benefit of
minimum pension by calculating their services with effect from 14.11.1980.
Therefore, such kind of special benefit cannot be extended to those who did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
not hold any post temporarily or on permanent basis as on 14.11.1980.
Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the
plea raised by the petitioner cannot be acceded to.
20.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also has relied
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ
appeals in W.A.(MD)No.1629 of 2018 dated 26.02.2021 in the matter of
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department and others vs. E.Balachandran.
21.Relying upon this Division Bench judgment and another judgment
of a review application, i.e. Rev.Aplw(MD).Nos.101 and 102 of 2021 dated
14.12.2021 in the matter of S.S.Kallabiran and K.Omaiyorupagam vs.
K.Shanmugam and others, the learned Additional Government Pleader
would contend that the persons who lost the job of Ex-Village Munsif or
Karnam dated 14.11.1980 alone were considered to be the candidates for the
purpose of getting minimum pension by calculating their service from
14.11.1980 and this has been made clear in the said judgments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
22.That apart, the learned Additional Government Pleader would
further contend that another line of Government Orders have been issued by
the Government in G.O.Ms.No.828 Revenue dated 23.08.1998,
G.O.Ms.No.629 Revenue dated 22.07.1998 and lastly G.O.Ms.No.753
Revenue Department dated 09.09.1998. In these Government Orders, those
who were working as Village Munsif or Karnam as on 14.11.1980 but lost
their job because of the Ordinance 10/1980 and subsequently had not been
re-appointed for want of qualification or age, in respect of those Ex-Village
Munsif or Karnam whether the special pension can be granted or not was
under consideration of the Government. Ultimately the Government have
come forward to issue those two Government Orders in which special
pension at the rate of Rs.175/- per month or Rs.100/- pr month as the case
may be as pension or family pension were sanctioned which has been
subsequently enhanced to Rs.250/- per month or Rs.150/- per month as the
case may be and this special pension was extended to those who were in the
job as Ex-Village Munsif or Karnam as on 14.11.1980 but was not literally
working because of the leave or suspension, for those people also the said
benefit of pension or family pension was extended by G.O.Ms.No.753 dated
09.09.1998 referred above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
23.Therefore, the two sets of Government Orders issued in this regard
would confer the benefit only to those who lost the job on 14.11.1980 and
not those who did not lose the job on 14.11.1980 or in other words who are
not in service as on 14.11.1980.
24.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this
Court.
25.Insofar as the legal argument advanced by the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, it is to be accepted.
26.The line of Government Orders, i.e. G.O.Ms.No.756 dated
17.08.1993, G.O.Ms.148 dated 20.04.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.158 dated
08.04.2015 has made one point clear that those who lost the job on
14.11.1980 alone were considered for such a benefit of calculating their
service from 14.11.1980 for the purpose of calculating the minimum
pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
27.Nevertheless, who all are the beneficiaries under these
Government Orders are to be looked into.
28.In this context, if not under other Government Orders, i.e.
G.O.Ms.No.756 dated 17.08.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 20.04.2011,
insofar as the latest G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015 which was the last or
latest G.O. in that line where 184 beneficiaries names have been included
in the list as annexure to G.O.Ms.No.158.
29.It is the strong case on the part of the petitioner that majority of
those beneficiaries though worked as Village Munsif or Karnam prior to
14.11.1980 i.e. in the 1976, 1798 or even 1979 but not as on 14.11.1980
have been considered by construing the cut-off date 14.11.1980 as if that
those also who lost the job as on 14.11.1980 and accordingly the benefits
have been extended to them under G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015.
30.In this context, the petitioner is able to point out that Sl.No.29 one
R.Palanisamy who was working prior to 14.11.1980 and not on 14.11.1980
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
and who was re-appointed on 19.04.2001 and superannuated on 31.10.2009.
Therefore, in his case though he did not hold the post of Village Munsif or
Karnam as on 14.11.1980 he was also considered for extending the benefit
under G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015. Like that, several other persons,
according to the information received by the petitioner, as projected by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who did not hold the post of Village
Munsif or Karnam as on 14.11.1980 also had been considered and granted
the minimum pension by taking into account their loss of post of Village
Munsif or Karnam even prior to 14.11.1980 by construing their loss of such
post as on 14.11.1980 and accordingly such benefit had been extended.
31.Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a presentable
case before this Court. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned admittedly he
was in the post of Village Karnam between 16.11.1978 and 17.07.1979 and
therefore that should also be considered as a job which he lost as on
14.11.1980 because of the Ordinance, otherwise the petitioner would have
been considered for re-appointment in the said post of Village Munsif or
Karnam. Therefore, the construction made by the respondent by extending
the benefit to 184 people under the G.O. can be extended to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
also. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
appealing to this Court in view of G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 08.04.2015 under
which some of the beneficiaries who literally did not hold the post of
Village Munsif or Karnam as on 14.11.1980 had also been given or
extended the benefits. Therefore, such kind of benefit can very well be
extended to the petitioner.
32.In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this
writ petition with the following orders:
That the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the respondents to
consider the request of the petitioner and treat him as a
person who lost the job as on 14.11.1980 and accordingly by
taking into account his service with effect from 26.04.2001
till 31.05.2004 as Village Administrative Officer along with
the service which notionally be treated from 14.11.1980 for
the purpose of calculating the minimum pensionable service
of 10 years by extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.158
Revenue Department dated 08.04.2015 calculate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
minimum pension payable to the petitioner from the date of
his request, i.e. 03.02.2017 and pay the same with arrears to
the petitioner.
The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the
respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
33.With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
29.06.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2426 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.,
cse
WP.No.2426 of 2018
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
