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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Manickam & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department Fort St. George, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 889, 891 & 894 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.S. Viswanathan Senior Counsel for T. Hemalatha. For the Respondent:R1 to R3, V. Jeeva Giridharan, Additional Government Pleader. R4, V. Vijayshankar, Advocate.

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-time employees who perform duties similar to full-time employees.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Pensionary Benefits - G.O.Ms.No.39, G.O.Ms.No.77 - The court directed the respondents to count half of the past service of the writ petitioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were initially appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerks, sought the extension of pensionary benefits by counting 50% of their services rendered in the post of part-time Panchayat Clerk for the purpose of getting pension along with regular service rendered by them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the nature of the work of the part-time Panchayat Clerks was similar to that of full-time Panchayat Clerks, and as there were no service rules at the relevant time, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of counting their past service for pensionary benefits.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, who were initially appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerks, were entitled to count 50% of their services for pensionary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and held that the phrase 'job involving whole time employment' should not be narrowly interpreted to apply only to full-time employees. The court also considered previous judgments and government orders that supported the petitioners' entitlement to pensionary benefits.

Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions and directed the respondents to count half of the past service of the writ petitioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits, to be completed within two months.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other order or Direction, directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.431 of 2016 dated 11.04.2016 and W.A.No.2358 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 by counting 50% services rendered by the Petitioners in the post of part time Panchayat Clerk from 01.11.1979 to 09.02.1995; 09.03.1981 to 09.02.1995 and from 11.08.1981 respectively for the purpose of getting pension along with regular service from 10.02.1995 till 30.04.2016; 10.02.1995 to 30.06.2019 and from 10.02.1995 till 31.01.2019 rendered by the Petitioners respectively.)

1. (a) Above Writ Petitions are filed for direction to the Respondents to extend the benefit of orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.431 of 2016 dated 11.04.2016 and W.A.No.2358 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 by counting 50% services rendered by the Petitioners in the post of part time Panchayat Clerks for the purpose of getting pension along with regular service rendered by them.

2. (a) It is the case of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.889 of 2023 that he was initially appointed as Part time Panchayat Clerk in Koodamalai Village Panchayat, Gengavalli Panchayat Union, Salem District w.e.f. 01.11.1979. Subsequently, the said post was re-designated as Panchayat Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1991. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.02.1995 and subsequently appointed as Deputy Block Development Officer.

2.(b) The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.891 of 2023 was initially appointed as Part time Panchayat Clerk in Saarvaai Village Panchayat, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Salem District, w.e.f. 11.08.1981. Subsequently, the said post was re-designated as Panchayat Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1991. Thereafter she was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.02.1995 and retired on 30.06.2019 as Deputy Block Development Officer.

2.(c) The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.894 of 2023 was also initially appointed as Part time Panchayat Clerk in Ramanaikkan Village Panchayat, Aathur Panchayat Union, Salem District, with effect from 09.03.1981 and subsequently the post of part time panchayat clerk was re-designated as Panchayat Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1991. Thereafter he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.02.1995 and subsequently as Deputy Block Development Officer and retired on 31.01.2019.

3. The petitioners were granted pension without taking into account their part time services. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development Department and Panchayat Raj dates 13.06.2011 by giving benefit of 50% of part time Panchayat service. However, the said guidelines were modified by G.O.Ms.o.77 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4).

4. It is the grievance of the Writ Petitioners that their part time services from initial appointment till their appointment of regular post has not been taken into account for pensionary benefit. G.O.M.No.39 Rural Department and Panchayat Raj dated 13.06.2011 passed giving benefit of counting 50% of part time panchayat service. Subsequently G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.07.2013 was passed restricting the counting of part time services. However, para 4(b) of the said G.O.Ms.No.77 was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.32579 of 2013 etc., Based on that the Division Bench in W.A.No.259 of 2016 dated 10.03.20160 upheld the order passed by the learned single judge holding that the employees who were absorbed prior to 01.04.2003 are entitled to count 50% of their part time service for pensioner benefit. Hence the present writ petitions are filed.

5. It is the stand of the Respondent that as per G.O.Ms.No.408 Finance and (Pension) Department dated 25.08.2009 half of the service rendered by the Government Servants in temporary service viz., Non- Provincialised Service, consolidated pay, Honorarium and Daily Wages basis on or after 01.01.1961 absorbed in regular ser

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