Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 724
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
R. Ponnappan – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 19779 of 2020, W.M.P. (MD) No. 4853 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Visvalingam.
For the Respondent: D. Sasikumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and reasonable consideration of claims for pensionary benefits, especially in cases where employees have rendered service on a temporary or daily wage basis.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Cholera Mazdoor - G.O. No. 41, dated 09.02.2010 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O. No. 41, dated 09.02.2010, which provides for counting of service rendered by employees on temporary basis/daily wage basis for pensionary benefits. The court highlighted the importance of extending the benefit to all eligible employees and emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable approach in considering such claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Cholera Mazdoor, sought pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme for the service rendered from 1979 to 1992. The authorities rejected the proposal for condonation of the break in service, citing the seasonal nature of the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was based on an unfounded theory and without proper consideration of the relevant facts. It also noted that the approach of the authorities appeared to be motivated by reasons other than the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner based on the seasonal nature of the Cholera Mazdoor post and the rejection of the proposal for condonation of the break in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was unjustified and unsustainable, and remanded the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to reconsider the proposals submitted for condonation of the break in service and pensionary benefits, emphasizing the need for a fair and expeditious decision.
JUDGMENT :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records of the second respondent i.e. the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai relating to e.f. viz. 38631/2020, 07.12.2020 communicated by the fifth respondent i.e. the Commissioner, Melpuram Panchayat Union in Endorsement No. A1/3147/2019 dated 11.12.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents i.e. the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai and the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai to sanction pension under Old Pension Scheme counting 50% of services put in by the petitioner on daily wage i.e. from 10.11.1979 to 14.06.1992 and condoning the break period of 4 years and 11 months and 28 days along with regular service put in by him from 17.06.1992 to 31.05.2011 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
1. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the proceedings in Pro. No. 38631/2020/E1, dated 07.12.2020 issued by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the proposal submitted by Respondent No. 4 for condoning the break in service of the petitioner while he was working as Cholera Mazdoor on the ground that the post of Cholera Mazdoor is a seasonal post and it is a daily wage base service. Consequently, the main claim of the petitioner for counting the 50% of service rendered by him as Cholera Mazdoor for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of G.O. No. 41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 09.02.2010 was also rejected.
2. The brief facts, that are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, are as under:
2.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Cholera Mazdoor on 09.11.1979 on temporary basis by dispensing with the procedure of obtaining the seniority list from the District Employment Office concerned, in view of the emergency at the relevant point of time. The said appointment was initially for a period of two months or till the period of end of cholera. However, the petitioner was continued in service and subsequently, he was posted as Group Clerk-cum-Bill Collector with effect from 17.06.1992 in the time scale of pay, i.e. after working for a period of 12 years 7 months and 7 days as Cholera Mazdoor. The services of the petitioner were also regularised in the post of Bill Collector and on attaining the age of superannuation, he was permitted to retire from service on 31.05.2011 and his pensionary benefits were also released. At that stage, the petitioner, having come to know about the Government Order in G.O. No. 41, dated 09.02.2010, made a claim for counting 50% of service rendered by him as Cholera Mazdoor for the purpose of fixing his pensionary benefits in terms of the said Government Order in G.O. No. 41, dated 09.02.2010. Accordingly, proposals were submitted to the 2nd respondent through letter in R.C. No. V3/4628/2013, dated 30.07.2013 to include 50% of the contingent service period rendered by the petitioner as Cholera Mazdoor for the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. However, the said proposal was rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground that there was break of service in the contingencies service, through a letter in R. Dis. No. 38535/PUPV3/12, dated 18.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the matter further and finally the 4th respondent herein submitted proposals through letter in R.C. V3/4628/2013, dated 08.03.2017 to the 2nd respondent herein for condonation of the break in service of the petitioner in the post of Cholera Mazdoor for a period of 4 years 11 months and 28 days. As the 2nd respondent has not considered the said proposal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (MD) No. 19768 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 14.10.2019, directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent. It is pursuant to the said directio
