Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Srinivasan & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Controller Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore & Others – Respondents
WP No. 13040 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2023
For the Petitioner:S. Parthasarathy, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, K. Surendaran, Additional Government Pleader, R3, M. Vijaya Mehanath, Advocate.
The court established that 50% of daily wage service should be considered for pension calculation, as per previous judgments.
Headnote:
Pension - Service Benefits - G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 - The court discussed the applicability of the Government Order to employees of the University, the resolution passed by the University, and the rationale behind excluding daily wage workers from the purview of the Government Order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought inclusion of his earlier period of service as a daily wage worker for calculation of pension. The University had excluded his daily wage service from pension calculation based on their resolution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the University's exclusion of daily wage workers from pension calculation lacked clarity and rationale. It referred to previous judgments where 50% of daily wage service was considered for pension calculation.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 to University employees and the exclusion of daily wage workers from pension calculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the University to re-calculate the petitioner's pension by considering 50% of his daily wage service for pension calculation.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the University was directed to re-calculate the petitioner's pension within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent in No.ALO/WP No. 38586/2015 dated 15.02.2016 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to follow the G.O.408 dated 25.08.2009 and pay pension with accrued interest.)
1. Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an order passed by the third respondent / the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore District, in No. ALO/WP No. 38586/2015 dated 15.02.2016 and direct the respondents to follow G.O 408 dated 25.08.2009 and pay pension with accrued interest.
2. The Writ Petition had been filed by V.Srinivasan, who had been appointed as Casual Mazdoor in the second respondent / the Directorate of Research, Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute, Aduthurai, Tanjore District, on 05.06.1975. He worked till 18.09.1989. He was then made permanent as a provisionalised unskilled mazdoor and later, as Office Assistant. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015 as Office Assistant (Selection Grade). The petitioner, had raised objections claiming that his earlier period of service from 05.06.1975 till 18.09.1989, during which he worked on daily wages should also be taken into consideration, while determining the classifying years for calculation of pension. By not extending that benefit, he averred that he had suffered financial loss and the pension was also reduced.
3. The writ petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No. 38586 of 2015 and a direction was given on 14.12.2015 by a learned Single Judge of this Court to the first respondent / the Controller, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, to examine the representation of the writ petitioner herein. That representation was rejected, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition.
4. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner V.Srinivasan unfortunately died and by an order dated 03.04.2023 in W.M.P.No. 5803 of 2023, his legal representatives had been substituted to proceed further the issues in the Writ Petition as second to fourth petitioners.
5. The petitioners placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, by which the Government had directed that the period of service in which an employee worked as daily wages along with three other categories were directed to be regularised and also to be taken into consideration while determining the qualifying years for grant of pension.
6. On the side of the respondents, the facts stated above relating to the service condition of the petitioner had not been denied or disputed. The only issue which they contest is that there is no specific statement given in G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, that it also applies to Universities. It has been pointed out that the respondent herein is the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University. There had been correspondences between the third respondent and the Government in this regard and reliance is placed on a letter wherein it had been stated by the Government that it is the choice of the Universities or aided institutions to adopt G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. The Government had not specifically stated that it is applicable nor has it stated that is not applicable, neither has it stated that it could be adopted partially. The choice was left entirely with the particular institute, which sought clarifications and in this case, the third respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the third respondent had brought to the notice of this Court the minutes of the third respondent in which the Board members had deliberated on application of G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. Even before examining the minutes, it must be placed on record that G.O.Ms.No. 408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.
