Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Nagarajan – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government Rural Development & Panchayats Department Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP. No. 4033 of 2016
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Pensionary Benefits - Service Recognition - G.O.Ms.No.99, G.O.Ms.No.77, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - The court examined the grant of pensionary benefits for service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Clerk between 07.01.1983 and 28.12.1990. The court referred to G.O.Ms.No.99 and G.O.Ms.No.77, which revised orders relating to pension for Part Time Panchayat Assistants. The court also discussed Rule 11(3) and Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which specify the conditions for counting service under non-pensionable establishment for retirement benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pensionary benefits for service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Clerk between 07.01.1983 and 28.12.1990. The court examined the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.99 and G.O.Ms.No.77, which revised orders relating to pension for Part Time Panchayat Assistants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Assistant for grant of pension. However, the calculation of the pension payable was left to the discretion of the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of pensionary benefits for service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Clerk between 07.01.1983 and 28.12.1990. The court also examined the date from which monetary benefits should be applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on G.O.Ms.No.99 and G.O.Ms.No.77, as well as Rule 11(3) and Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, to determine the eligibility for counting service under non-pensionable establishment for retirement benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was held entitled to count the service rendered as Part Time Panchayat Assistant for grant of pension. The court left the calculation of the pension payable to the discretion of the respondents.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in PO3/10315376/R0315376 dated 26.08.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the post of panchayat Clerk/Panchayat Assistant from 07.01.1983 to 28.12.1990 as qualifying service for pension and revise his pension and other retirement benefits accordingly.)
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus seeking interference with the order of the 2nd respondent, Principal Accountant General [Accounts and Entitlements], Chennai, dated 26.8.2015 in PO3/1315376/3/R0315376 and to direct the respondents to also take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner in the post of Part Time Panchayat Assistant between 07.01.1983 and 28.12.1990 as qualifying service for pension and consequently, to revise his pension and other retirement benefits.
(2) The petitioner who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, had been originally appointed as Part Time Panchayat Clerk on 07.01.1983. His services were then recognised and he was appointed as Full Time Panchayat Assistant on 28.12.1990. He was appointed as Junior Assistant on 01.10.1995. He was then promoted as Assistant and Deputy Block Development Officer and retired on attaining the age of superannuation as Deputy Block Development Officer on 30.04.2015.
(3) The only issue to be examined by this Court is grant of pensionary benefits during his service as Part Time Panchayat Clerk between 07.01.1983 and 28.12.1990. The fact that he had been paid the retirement benefits counting his services commencing from 28.12.1990 is not in dispute and is not an issue before this Court.
(4) In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner herein drew the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.99, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj [E5] Department dated 27.08.2022. The 2nd reference in the said Government Order was G.O.Ms.No.77, again issued by the same Department, but dated 12.07.2013 and by that particular Government Order/G.O.Ms.No.77, revised orders relating to pension were passed taking into consideration the services rendered by Part Time Panchayat Assistant Grade-I, Grade-II and Panchayat Clerks. It had been stated that the time period of such service as part time, shall not be taken into account for the purposes of pension and it was stated that however, those who had benefited from such consideration by virtue of an earlier Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.39, again of the same Department, but dated 13.6.2011, shall however not be affected. In effect, the purport of the G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.07.2013 was to reject the consideration of grant of pension for those who were in services as Part Time Panchayat Assistants and that period of service should not be taken into consideration while calculating the qualifying service or qualifying years for calculation of pension.
(5) By G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.08.2022, this aspect was reconsidered. This reconsideration was consequent to several writ petitions which had been filed before the Principal Bench and before the Madurai Bench and it had been stated in the course of the Government Order that judgments had been passed in favour of the petitioners therein. Writ appeals have been filed by the Government and the writ appeals had also been dismissed. Therefore, the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, had sent a proposal to the Government for considering 50% of service rendered in the post of Part Time Panchayat Clerk along with regular service for calculating the pensionary benefits. One condition was put, namely, that the Part Time Panchayat Clerks should have been absorbed into the Government service prior to 01.04.2003.
(6) This date 01.04.2003 assumes importance since there was consideration of t
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 application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and subsequent government orders in determining pensionary benefits for part-time Panchayat Clerks.
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.
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 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 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 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....
Part-time service cannot be counted towards pension qualifying service as per relevant rules and judicial precedents.
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
