Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Battu Devanand, J.
C.Markandan - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.17863 of 2023 and WMP(MD)No.14948 of 2023
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) General Services for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules - Rule 49(c) - Writ petition to quash proceedings denying retirement benefits for the period from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019 - Petitioner appointed in 1983, with a date of birth recorded incorrectly in service register - Court held that the petitioner was not at fault for the absence during the disputed period and entitled to benefits - Impugned order quashed. (Paras 1, 9, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Denial of opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned order is a violation of natural justice. (Paras 3, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed in 1983, had his date of birth incorrectly recorded as 28.01.1958 instead of 23.03.1961. After a series of representations and a favorable judgment from a Division Bench, he was reinstated but denied retirement benefits for the period of absence. (Paras 2, 9)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was not at fault for the absence and should receive all service benefits until retirement. The impugned order was found to be illegal and unjust. (Paras 12)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to retirement benefits for the disputed period and if the denial of benefits violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was not at fault for the absence and should not be penalized under 'no work no pay' principles, reaffirming that such principles are not absolute. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and respondents directed to grant retirement benefits within four weeks.
ORDER :
Battu Devanand, J.
This writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings issued by the fourth respondent vide his letter in Na.Ka. No.2069/2019/A1 dated 09.02.2023 in so far as not regularizing his service for the period from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019 in the light of judgment passed by this Honble High Court in WA (MD) No.147 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant retirement benefits along with interest within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner was appointed as Village Thalaiyari as per the order of the fourth respondent dated 17.03.1983 and he joined as Village Thalaiyari of Muthu Nagaiahapuram on 20.03.1983. The petitioner produced the school Transfer Certificate to the concerned authorities to show that his date of birth as 23.03.1961. But in his Service Register, his date of birth has been recorded as 28.01.1958 instead of 23.03.1961. It is the contention of the petitioner that this error or mistake came to his knowledge only in the year 2015. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation for change of his date of birth in the Service Register to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent rejected his request stating that the request for change of date of birth ought to have been submitted within five years from joining service. The petitioner submitted the representation after 32 years and therefore, the same cannot be entertained.
(ii) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 25.01.20166. Meanwhile, he was promoted as the Village Administrative Officer on 13.10.2016. He continued in the service as the Village Administrative Officer till 30.04.2018. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the third respondent by order in Na.Ka.No.2696/2018/A1 dated 30.04.2018 rejected the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Village Administrative Officer. Immediately, he filed a writ petition against the order of the third respondent dated 30.04.2018 before this Court in WP(MD)No.14497 of 2018 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 26.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal in WA.(MD). No. 147 of 2019. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal by its judgment dated 05.03.2019, holding that the appellant therein/petitioner is entitled to get his date of birth changed as per the original date of birth as 23.03.1961 and accordingly, he is entitled to continue in service till his retirement. The respondents therein are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was re-instated into service and he continued his service as Village Administration Officer and retired from the service on 31.03.2019.
(iii) Therafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representations to the respondents on 16.07.2019, 16.08.2019 and 04.07.2022 to disburse his retirement benefits and other benefits expeditiously. But, there is no response. After receipt of his representation on 19.07.2022, the third respondent sent communication vide Na.Ka.No. 3032/2022/Al to the fourth respondent to take necessary action to disburse his retirement benefits and other benefits to the petitioner.
(iv) Under these circumstances, the fourth Respondent without considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in Na.Ka.No. 2069/2019/Al dated 09.02.2023 and rejected the retirement benefits and other benefits for the period from 01.02.2018 to 18.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. The learned counsel submits that a Division Bench of this Court, while allowin
The principle of 'no work no pay' is not absolute; an employee wrongfully denied work is entitled to benefits.
The 'no work, no pay' principle should be applied in service jurisprudence, and retrospective punishment orders are not in accordance with the law.
An employer cannot dispute an employee's recorded birth date post-retirement to deny service benefits, affirming that such objections constitute negligence.
Prolonged unauthorized absence from service results in salary forfeiture beyond three years prior to filing a writ petition, while pensionary rights are preserved post-superannuation.
An employee's prior daily wage service is to be included in qualifying service for pension eligibility, despite the date of regularization, per recent amendments to service rules.
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
