K.Rajalakshmi vs The Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 17510 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 17510 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 December, 2023

Madras High Court

K.Rajalakshmi vs The Secretary on 22 December, 2023

                                                                               W.P.No.13618 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 22.12.2023

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                              W.P.No.13618 of 2021
                     K.Rajalakshmi                                            ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.

                     1.The Secretary,
                       School Education Department,
                       Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Fort St.George,
                       Chennai 600 009.

                     2.The Director of School Education,
                       DPI Campus,
                       Nungambakkam,
                       Chennai 600 034.

                     3.The Headmistress,
                       Government Girls Higher Secondary School,
                       Poonamallee,
                       Chennai 600 056.

                     4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
                       361, Anna Salai,
                       Chennai 600 018.                                       ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                     of the order passed by the fourth respondent in No.P11/4/11128010/ADK
                     Page No.1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.No.13618 of 2021

                     dated 20.10.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth
                     respondent to approve the pension of the petitioner taking into account
                     50% of her service rendered on consolidated pay both as Noon Meal
                     Organiser and as B.T.Assistant during the period from 01.02.1983 to
                     31.05.2006 along with her entire service on regular basis as B.T.Assistant
                     from 01.06.2006 to the date of her retirement on 30.04.2015 and to pay
                     pension and other terminal benefits accordingly.
                                       For Petitioner  : Mr.R.Natarajan
                                       For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader

                                                          ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by

the fourth respondent in No.P11/4/11128010/ADK dated 20.10.2020 and

quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to approve

the pension of the petitioner taking into account 50% of her service

rendered on consolidated pay both as Noon Meal Organiser and as

B.T.Assistant during the period from 01.02.1983 to 31.05.2006 along

with her entire service on regular basis as B.T.Assistant from 01.06.2006

to the date of her retirement on 30.04.2015 and to pay pension and other

terminal benefits accordingly.

2. Heard Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the

respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser on 01.02.1983. On

01.01.1996, the petitioner's service was regularised and the petitioner

joined as B.T.Assistant in the year 2004. Thereafter the petitioner retired

from service in the year 2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is

claimed by the petitioner that 50% of her services rendered under the

non-provincialised post can also be counted for qualifying service for the

purpose of giving her pension in accordance with G.O.Ms.408, Finance

and Pension Department dated 25.08.2009 of the Government of Tamil

Nadu.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents

submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.408 dated 25.08.2009, 50% services of

an individual rendered in any non-provincialised service can be taken

into account, provided the petitioner got absorbed in regular service on or

before 01.04.2003. The learned Special Government Pleader further

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

submitted that the petitioner's service as Noon Meal Organiser was never

regularised even though the petitioner was given with the time scale of

pay. The petitioner has not produced any order to show that her services

have been regularised as on 01.01.1996.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that giving time

scale itself should be taken as regularisation. The attention of this Court

was drawn to the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.No.4189 of

2018, dated 14.07.2022, wherein, it is held as under:

"30. In paragraph 45(iii), it is stated by the Full Bench that, 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 regularized before 01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits.

31. Since this being the law declared by this Court by a authoritative pronouncement i.e., Full Bench referred to above that is having the binding

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

precedent and we all are bound by the said decision.

32. If we apply the said principle in the present facts of the case, where the petitioner worked as Noon Meal Organizer from 26.05.1985 till 08.07.2003 and on the next day, she joined in the post as Junior Assistant on 09.07.2003 and after rendering service including Bill Collector in the third respondent Department, she retired on superannuation.

33. By virtue of G.O.(Ms.)No.2 referred to above dated 03.01.1996, where the special consolidated pay has also been allowed.

34. Therefore the question of absorption in the regular service which has already been taken place well before 01.04.2003 i.e., cut-off date does not arise."

6. In the said case, it is held that the question of absorption in

regular service which has already been taken place well before

01.04.2003 i.e., cut-off date does not arise. However, the learned counsel

for the petitioner interprets the observation made in the said case that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Court has recognised the date of awarding time scale of pay itself as the

date for regularisation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has

already been regularised on 01.01.1996. In that case, it is appropriate for

the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light

of the order made in W.P.No.4189 of 2018 and pass appropriate orders.

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed and the respondents

are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of