Madras High Court
Chidhambaranathan vs Dr.Anandha Kumar on 4 September, 2023
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
1.Chidhambaranathan
2.Chinnayan
3.S.Isakki Muthu
4.Arumugam
5.Krishna Kumar
6.Rajendran
7.John Selvaraj
8.Davit Devanasan ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.Dr.Anandha Kumar, IAS,
Secretary,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Mrs.Susidhara Lasus,
The Principal Secretary,
The State Commissioner for Differently Abled,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. ...Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience in
violating the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33880 of 2014 dated
21.11.2017.
For Petitioners : Ms.U.Parvatha
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for
their willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2017 passed
in W.P.No.33880 of 2014.
2.This Court passed the following order:
“12.Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
reconsider the case of the writ petitioners, in the light of
the observations made in this order, for the purpose of
granting the relief of counting the service of 50% of the
services rendered on temporary basis and pass appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
orders after verifying the service records and based on
Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and
communicate the decision taken to the writ petitioners as
early as possible, preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.In the event of counting 50% of the past
services, the GPF Account has to be opened after closing
the CPF Account, opened on account of the cut off date of
01.04.2003, since the cut off date was already quashed by
this Court and there was no appeal against the order.
14.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed
of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
3.The Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not
appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service
Rules in a sanctioned post. The petitioner was appointed as Part-time
employee on consolidated pay in a non-sanctioned post. Therefore, the
period of services rendered in a non-sanctioned post on consolidated pay is
not covered under the Amended Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
The learned Additional Government Pleader referred the directions issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
by the Full Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.No.158 of
2016, etc. dated 03.12.2019, wherein the Full Bench clarified that 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.
4.Though the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay prior to
01.04.2003 they were regularly appointed and their services were
regularized in the year 2005 after the cut off date more so on
implementation of the new pension scheme i.e., Contributory Pension
Scheme. That being the factum, the directions issued by this Court has not
been violated.
5.That apart, this Court passed orders on 21.11.2017 and the Full
Bench of this Court settled the issues by delivering the judgment on
03.12.2019 and the petitioners filed the present contempt petition after a
lapse of about four years from the date of Full Bench judgment in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
2023. Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules contemplates that 'Half
of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised
service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st
January 1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular
service before 1st April shall be counted for retirement benefits along with
regular service subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Rule 11(4)(i)
stipulates that service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated
pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time
employment.
6.In the present case, the learned Additional Government Pleader
made a submission that the petitioners were appointed as part-time
employees with consolidated pay in between the years 1993 to 1996. The
part-time employees are not entitled for availing the benefit of counting of
half of the service as contemplated under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
cse
7.Thus the petitioners are not entitled and the respondents have not
violated the orders passed by this Court. In view of the facts and
circumstances, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.
04.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cse
To
1.Dr.Anandha Kumar, IAS,
Secretary,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Mrs.Susidhara Lasus,
The Principal Secretary,
The State Commissioner for Differently Abled,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078
Cont.P.No.1857 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
