Authorities to verify entire service record of petitioner and pass order.

Claiming that the petitioner was working as a regular Khalasi in the respondent- Board from 20.11.1971 and thereafter absorbed in a regular vacancy from 1.1.1984 as a helper in the time scale of pay, the petitioner complains that the respondent, by proceedings dated 21.4.1992, have denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he had not put in a minimum of ten years pensionable service for granting pension, as he had serviced only eight years and four months, namely from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992, when the petitioner had retired on superannuation. Hence the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in proceedings in Order Rc.No.21714/2/92, dated 21.4.1992 and proceedings in Order Rc.No.17672/P2/92, dated 28.5.1992 on the file of the respondent, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to count the entire period of service of the petitioner from 20.11.1971 to 30.4.1992 amounting to 20 years and 6 months as qualifying service and grant pension and balance of the service gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity with interest.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the petitioner was appointed as a regular helper on 1.1.1984 and has retired on superannuation on 30.4.1992, he was working as Khalasi in the respondent- Board ever since 20.11.1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioners service as Khalasi from 20.11.1971 to 31.12.1983 temporarily also should be taken into account along with the period of service from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992, and in which event, he had put in an uninterrupted service of twenty years and six months in the respondent- Board, and therefore, has satisfied the required pensionary service of a minimum of ten years in the respondent- Board for the purpose of granting pension.

3. Per contra, the respondent, in their counter-affidavit, have averred that the service of the petitioner as Khalasi is only on daily related basis and hence the same will not be taken into account for pensionary benefits as per Rule 2(a) of the Tamil nadu Pension Rules.

4. In reply, Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which prescribes the enhancement of qualifying service for granting pension. He also brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, wherein, the Government, after referring Rules 2 and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, had directed that half of the service from contingency shall be allowed to count towards pension along with regular service, subject to the condition stated therein, one of them being that the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned e.g., Malis, Chowkidar, Khalasis, etc.

5. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that half of service of the petitioner from 20.11.1971 till 31.12.1983 during which period he was working as Khalasi temporarily should be taken into consideration along with the regular service of the petitioner from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992 and that the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for pension, since he had rendered more than ten years of pensionary service under the respondent- Board.

6. After considering the contentions of both sides, I am obliged to refer Rules 2(a) and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, which read as follows:

Rule 2: “Application: Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to all Government Servants appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent, but shall not apply to

(a) persons in casual and daily rated employment.

Rule 11:” Commencement of qualifying