SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Rmt. Teekaaraman, J.
K. Krishnasamy – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 1758 of 2014
Decided On : 12-08-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Selvin Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Subramanian, Advocate, P. Gunasekaran, Standing Counsel, Gunaseelan Muthiah, Additional Government Pleader.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to count past service for pension determination is subject to specific conditions and criteria as per the relevant government orders and pension rules.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Pensionary Benefits - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 11(2) and Rule 11(4) - G.O.(Ms)No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 09.02.2010 and G.O.(Ms)No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Village Administrative Officer, sought mandamus to count 50% of his Noon Meal services for pensionary benefits. The petitioner had worked as a part-time Village Karnam and later as a full-time Village Administrative Officer. He also worked as a part-time Noon Meal Organizer before being selected as a Village Administrative Officer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's service did not meet the minimum qualifying service for pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The court also noted that the petitioner's service did not meet the conditions specified in the relevant government orders for counting half of the service for retirement benefits.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's service as a part-time Noon Meal Organizer could be counted for pensionary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench decision which clarified that only certain categories of government servants who rendered specific types of service before a cut-off date were entitled to count half of their past service for pension determination. The court applied this decision to the petitioner's case and found that he did not meet the criteria for counting his previous service.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to count 50% of the petitioner's Noon Meal services for pensionary benefits and to award pension.)

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, to count 50% of the petitioner's Noon Meal Services for pensionary benefits and to award pension.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is as follows:

    (a). The writ petitioner is a retired Village Administrative Officer. He has worked as temporary Village Karnam at Achampatti Village, Thanjavur Taluk from 03.04.1979 to 19.11.1979. This was a part time village officer post. After the abolition of the post of Village Officer and creation of the Village Administrative Officer post, the petitioner was selected as Village Administrative Officer in Thanjavur District and he had worked as Village Administrative Officer from 23.12.2000 to 30.06.2009 and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2009.

(b). Prior to his service as Village Administrative Officer, he had worked as part time Noon Meal Organizer in Pudukottai District from 08.02.1983 to 22.12.2000. Subsequently, he has been selected as Village Administrative Officer and he resigned his post of Noon Meal Organizer on the afternoon of 22.12.2000. As such, he rendered full time Government service as Village Administrative Officer only for a period of eight years six months and nine days only. Hence, the petitioner has claimed to take into account of 50% of services rendered by him as Noon Meal Organizer in the light of G.O.(Ms)No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009.

3. In the counter, the contesting official respondent stated that,

    (a). As the Writ Petitioner did not put a minimum regular service of 10 years, he is not eligible for payment of pension as per Rule 43 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Therefore, the Accountant General granted only proportionate service gratuity to him and pension was not sanctioned due to the dearth of minimum qualifying service as full time Government service.

3(b). It remains to be stated that in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before first April 2003, who has completed ten years of service were granted a minimum pension of Rs.3050/- as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The petitioner has served only eight years six months and nine days. Hence he is not eligible for getting pension.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records produced before this Court. The relevant Rules that governs the subject matter of this writ petition are hereunder:

5. Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, rule 11(2) has been laid down as follows:

    “2. Half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards qualifying service for pension along with regular service subject to the following conditions:

(i) Service paid from contingencies shall be in a job involving whole time employment and not part time for a portion of the day.

(ii) .....

(iii)........”

6. The Government have amended the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, in rule 11 and inserted the rule 11(4) by their G.O.(Ms)No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 09.02.2010 so as to implement the benefits extended by the G.O.(Ms)No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. It has been laid down as follows:

    “4. 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 2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the following conditions, namely:

(i) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment;

(ii) Service rendered shall be on consolidated p

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      AI

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top