Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Kothandam on 28 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.3527 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Appeal No.3527 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.22631 of 2019
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By its Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
having office at Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Vellore.
4. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Office at D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Appellants
Vs
S.Kothandam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed in W.P.No.19245 of 2015 dated 01.07.2015 and
allow the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/7
Writ Appeal No.3527 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Mani
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order passed
by the Writ Court dated 01.07.2015 made in W.P.No.19245 of 2015.
2. The respondent was appointed as Plot Watcher on 01.11.1982
in the Forest Department on daily wage basis. Thereafter, he was
regularized in service as Forest Watcher on 05.01.2007. Subsequently, he
was promoted as Forest Guard on 03.05.2013 and thereafter, on
superannuation he retired from service on 30.06.2014.
3. After retirement, the employer since has calculated only the
period from 05.01.2007 to 30.06.2014, it was not eligible for getting the
minimum pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, therefore the
pension has been denied to the respondent. However, the respondent as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
per Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and also the various
judgments made in this regard by the Court of law is entitled to calculate
the 50% of the past service rendered by him prior to his regularization in
service, for which he approached the appellants, but the same was not
considered, therefore, seeking for a writ of mandamus the writ
petitioner/respondent had approached the Writ Court by filing the writ
petition, which was allowed by the learned Judge through the impugned
order dated 01.07.2015.
4. Heard Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
5. Insofar as the issue raised in this intra-court appeal is concerned,
it is no more res-integra as the issue has been concluded long back by
number of judgments and in fact in paragraph 3 of the impugned order
the learned Judge has quoted one of the judgment made in W.A.Nos.27
and 28 of 2012 dated 13.02.2012 in the case of Government of Tamil
Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Vs.M.Gopal and the relevant
portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
“3. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the services rendered by him prior to regularization is not
taken into account for the purpose of pension and other
benefits as per Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules. He has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2012 dated
13.02.2012 (Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its
Secretary to Government Vs. M.Gopal) which was
confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in SLP
Nos.14838 – 14839 of 2012 on 10.05.2012. The
Government implemented the same in G.O.Ms.No.183,
Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated
18.07.2012. Further, I have also passed an order in detail
to count 50% of service rendered before regularization in
the case of P.Chinniyan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014
(6) MLJ 316].In this regard, the petitioner also made a
representation dated 05.07.2014 to the respondents 1 and
2.”
6. That apart many number of such cases had come up before this
Court, where orders have been passed, recently also this Bench had come
across one or two such cases, where the view already been taken by the
various Benches of this Court having been considered and the cases were
allowed in favour of the employees, where the employees were entitled to
seek for calculation of 50% of the past service rendered by them before
they got regularized for the purpose of calculating the pensionary
benefits.
7. Herein the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.11.1982, the respondent/writ petitioner has been engaged or appointed
as Plot Watcher and he had been working in that capacity without getting
him regularized till 05.01.2007, for all these years i.e., about 25 years, he
had rendered long service to the Department, which cannot be given a go-
by and such service should be taken for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
8. That is the reason why, 50% of the past service as per the
Government Orders, which were in vogue have been taken into account
for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Here also, it falls under the same
category, where the employee is entitled to get his 50% of the past service
to calculate for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Therefore, the
direction given by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment cannot be
said to be unsustainable and it is in consonance with the number of
earlier decisions that has been made, which we had also concurred in one
or two cases.
9. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the said
contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader assailing the
order, which is impugned herein, therefore the impugned order is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sustained.
10. As a result, this writ appeal fails, hence it is to be dismissed,
accordingly it is dismissed.
11. The needful as directed by the learned Judge through the
impugned order shall be undertaken by the appellants within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M., J.)
28.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mp
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
