Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1573
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S.S.S. Prahalathan - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 12810 of 2019 W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 9541, 9542 & 9543 of 2019
Decided On : 13-04-2022
For the Petitioner:Raja Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, R5 & R7, A.K. Masnikkam, Special Government Pleader, R4, P. Gunasekaran, R6, R. Satish, Advocates.
Resignation with proper permission for another government appointment does not entail forfeiture of past service, as per Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Headnote:
Resignation - Reckoning of Past Service - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Rule 23
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer, sought to include his past service as a Junior Drafting Officer in TWAD Board for pensionary benefits. The authorities rejected his claim, citing separate provident fund accounts and resignation from the previous post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's resignation from TWAD Board, with proper permission and subsequent appointment, did not entail forfeiture of past service, as per Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's past service in TWAD Board could be reckoned for pensionary benefits despite resignation and subsequent appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if resignation is submitted with proper permission for another appointment under the government, it does not entail forfeiture of past service, as per Rule 23(1) of the Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the authorities to reckon the petitioner's past service in TWAD Board as qualifying service period for pensionary benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 5th respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.26152/2014/EE-2, dated 12.07.2016 and consequent proceedings of the 7th respondent vide Na.Ka.No. 019/2019/RD6, dated 10.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal as devoid of merits and consequently direct the respondents to compute the past service rendered by the petitioner in the 6th respondent / TWAD Board for pensionary and other monetary benefits and allow the petitioner to continue in the Old Pension Scheme (CPS) and issue general provident fund number.)
The order of rejection, dated 12.07.2016, passed by the fifth respondent and the consequential order dated 10.05.2019, passed by the seventh respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reckoning the period of services rendered by him as Junior Drafting Officer in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (for brevity “TWAD Board”) are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. He joined in the Department on 24.11.2007 as Assistant Engineer through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and his services were regularized and at present, he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer.
3. The petitioner states that he served as Junior Drafting Officer in TWAD Board from 05.05.1993 to 23.11.2007. The petitioner, while working as Junior Drafting Officer in TWAD Board, appeared in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is specifically stated that the petitioner obtained permission from TWAD Board to participate in the selection process. The petitioner was subsequently selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and thereafter, he resigned the post of Junior Drafting Officer and got relieved himself from TWAD Board and joined in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department as Assistant Engineer.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the services rendered by him as Junior Drafting Officer in TWAD Board from 05.05.1993 to 23.11.2007 has not been taken into consideration by the respondents for reckoning the qualifying service period for grant of pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted an application for the said grievance and it was rejected by the fifth respondent stating that he resigned the post of Junior Drafting Officer in TWAD Board and further, the account for provident fund was separately maintained by TWAD Board and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.
5. It is relevant to refer Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (for brevity “the Rules) in this regard. Rule 23 of the Rules stipulates forfeiture on service on resignation. Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 23 states resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service. Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.
6. As far as TWAD Board is concerned, the petitioner obtained proper permission from the Competent Authority and such permission was accorded vide proceedings dated 05.01.2007. After selection, the petitioner resigned his post in TWAD Board and joined in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. When permission has been properly granted by TWAD Board and pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner resigned his post in TWAD Board and thereafter, joined in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules would be applicable. The proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules in clear terms stipulates that resignation shall not entail forfeitu
