Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
R. Palaniappan
Versus
Director of Local Fund Audit Kuralagam, Chennai & Another
W.P.NO.31126 OF 2005 & O.A.NO.4801 OF 2000
Decided On : 29-09-2010
Pension - Retirement - Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, Rule 56(a), Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 41-A(a) - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former government servant, claimed pension benefits after being denied by the respondents. The dispute arose from the petitioner's resignation and the absence from duty for more than five years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's resignation, though not recorded in the service register, was acted upon by the department, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to pension benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who had resigned and remained absent from duty for more than five years, was entitled to pension benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner had resigned and the resignation was acted upon by the department, he was not entitled to pension benefits, despite the lack of entry in the service register.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to pension benefits.
1. The petitioner was originally appointed as Peon in Mellasamudhram Town Panchayat on 05.10.1961. He served upto 05.10.1963. Later, he served as Over Head Tank Watchman from 01.06.1966 to 02.04.1976 in the said Town Panchayat. He was sanctioned unearned leave from 05.12.1975 to 02.04.1976. The date of birth of the petitioner was 17.03.1940 and his date of retirement was 31.03.2000. According to the petitioner, after 02.04.1976, he was not allowed to work; no other posting order was given to him and no disciplinary action was initiated against him. He was neither terminated nor removed/dismissed from service till the date of his retirement. As per Rule 56(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, he is deemed to have been retired from service on 31.03.2000 and he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits. However, when he claimed pension, the same was negatived by the first respondent, by the order dated 18.06.1999. Consequently, the second respondent passed the order dated 09.08.1999, refusing to grant pension to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4801 of 2000 (W.P.No.31126 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid order dated 18.06.1999 of the first respondent and the consequential order dated 09.08.1999 of the second respondent.
3. The respondents have filed separate reply affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioner.
4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order denying pension to the petitioner on the ground that he was continuously absent for more than five years is bad. According to him, the petitioner was not permitted to rejoin duty, after the expiry of the unearned leave and he was not given any other posting order. The respondents could not adduce another reason in the reply affidavit that he resigned his job and that therefore, he is not entitled to pension as per the Pension Rules.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 41-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules that a Government servant may resign his appointment by giving notice of not less than three months in writing directly to the appointing authority with a copy marked to his immediate officer. This rule was not followed in the case of petitioner. Hence, there was no resignation in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to pension for his service rendered from the year 1961 to 1976 i.e. for 15 years.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the resignation of the petitioner was not entered in the Service Register. The impugned order was passed based on the service register of the petitioner. Hence, it was stated that the petitioner did not join service after 02.04.1976 and remained absent for more than five years. But the fact was that he resigned his service by giving a letter dated 21.04.1976.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent relies on the Audit Report dated 26.02.1978. As per the report, the petitioner resigned his job on 21.04.1976. The learned counsel produced the copy of the resolution passed by the second respondent, sanctioning certain amount to the petitioner, based on his resignation.
9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The impugned order dated 18.06.199 passed by the first respondent reads as follows:
(TAMIL)
The impugned order reveals that the same was passed based on the Service Register of the petitioner. As per the Service Register, he was sanctioned unearned leave from 05.12.1975 to 02.04.1976. There was no entry in the service register relating to rejoining of duty by the petitioner after the expiry of leave on 02.04.1976. Based on the service register, it is stated that the petitioner was not entitled to get pension as per the Pension Rules, since he was continuously absent for more than five years.
10. If there was no entry in the Service Register
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
