IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M. Arumugam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 39155, 39156 & 39157 of 2015
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Pensionary Benefits - Village Servants - Rule 11(2) of Pension Rules - G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 - G.O.(Rt.) No.77, dated 12.07.2013 - Full Bench Judgement - [Village Servants] - [Rule 11(2) of Pension Rules, G.O.Ms.No.408, G.O.(Rt.) No.77] - The court discussed the application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules, G.O.Ms.No.408, and G.O.(Rt.) No.77, and emphasized the need to follow the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, initially appointed as Village Servants on contract basis, sought to count 50% of their services for pensionary benefits. The Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, and subsequent amendments were the subject of dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, emphasizing the need to follow Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioners to count 50% of their services for pensionary benefits, based on the interpretation of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and the relevant Government Orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules, G.O.Ms.No.408, and G.O.(Rt.) No.77, and the need to follow the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the court emphasized the need to follow the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected in Lr.O.Mu.Va.Ni2(2)/49506/2014 dated 17.02.2015 of the fourth respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and count half of service rendered prior to 01.06.1995 along with regular service for the purpose of pension and grant pension as per the revised norms and pay arrears within a reasonable time.)
Common Order
1. The petitioners were initially appointed as Village Servant on 12.06.1958, 02.02.1956 and 29.10.1962 respectively on contract basis. Admittedly, the initial appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis and their services were provincialised by the Government from 01.06.1995 onwards. The petitioners were paid regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995 and till such time, they were serving as consolidated pay employees. The petitioners were allowed to retire from service on 31.03.1997, 30.09.1996 and 28.02.1996 respectively on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the petitioners have not completed 10 years of regular service in the time scale of pay, no pension was sanctioned in their favour. Thus, the petitioners submitted representations to count 50% of the services rendered by them in the post of Village Servant. The said representations were not considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petitions in the year 2015.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis on consolidated pay and they were allowed to retire from service in the years 1996 and 1997 respectively. These writ petitions were filed after a lapse of about 18 years. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions on the ground that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 grants benefit of counting of 50% of the daily wage temporary services and the said benefit is to be extended to the petitioners for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. The said representations were not considered by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made a submission that the cases of similar persons were considered by the Government and the Courts have also passed orders considering the individual cases and directed the Government to count 50% of the services. Therefore, similar benefit is to be extended to the petitioners also.
4. The post of Village Servant was a part-time job. It was not considered as full time employment and the services of the petitioners were provincialised only with effect from 01.06.1995 and they were brought under the regular time scale of pay from such date. Till such time, they were considered as part-time job holders.
5. The respondents relied on Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules, which is added as per G.O.Ms.No.283, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 15.04.1996, which reads as under:-
"Rule 11(2): "Half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards qualifying service for pension along with regular 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) Service paid from contingencies shall be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, for example Chowkidar.
(iii) Service shall be for which the payment is made out on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay, shall bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishments.
(iv) Service paid from contingencies shall
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
The application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and subsequent government orders in determining pensionary benefits for part-time Panchayat Clerks.
Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, and if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a group of individuals, others can....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules in the context of part-time employment and the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow the Pension Rules scrupulously for counting 50% of the services rendered by employees and the application of Article 14 only if ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to count service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Assistant for grant of pension, as governed by G.O.Ms.No.99, G.O.Ms.No.77, and Rul....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the phrase 'job involving whole time employment' in Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules should be interpreted broadly to include part-t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that half of the past services of village assistants, regularized as of 01.06.1995, should be included for pension calculation along with their sub....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules are to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50% of the services rendered by the em....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.