Eligibility for counting temporary service towards pension benefits is contingent on employment type and timing of regularization under applicable pension rules.

ORDER

Under assail is the order dated 11.01.2019 issued by the second respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to calculate half of the temporary service rendered by the petitioner for pension benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed temporarily in the post of Sweeper at Avvaiyar Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, as per proceedings dated 22.11.1977. She was not regularized upto the year 2006. She approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.11639 of 2006 and based on the order passed by this Court dated 02.03.2007, she was regularized in the post of Sweeper vide proceedings dated 24.03.2008. The Government has issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.408 dated 25.08.2009, in which, it has been categorically provided that half of the temporary service should be reckoned for calculation of pension benefits of those regularized employees. She is entitled to the benefit of calculation of half of the temporary service rendered by her from 22.11.1977 to 24.03.2008 for the purpose of calculation of pension. The Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.547 of 2012 dated 24.08.2017 has held that “the writ petitioner had worked as an NMR Pump Operator cum Watchman during the entire period and entitled to take 50% of the said period for computing pensionary benefits”. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner and she is entitled to the benefit of calculation of half of the temporary service rendered from 22.11.1977 to 24.03.2008 for the purpose of calculating pension. Hence, this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.408 dated 25.08.2009, the petitioner is entitled to reckoned half of the temporary service and TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES 11(2) also provides for inclusion of half of the temporary service rendered prior to regularization. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.547 of 2012 dated 24.08.2017.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was working as part time employee from 22.11.1977 to 23.03.2008. Part time service is not equal to the service of NMR, as NMR service is full time service, the petitioner cannot claim parity with it. He would submit that the petitioner was absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to calculate 50% of the service rendered from 22.11.1977 to 22.03.2008. The Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.547 of 2012 dated 24.08.2017 considered the case of NMR employees, whereas, the petitioner is served as part time employee and part time service of the employee is not par with NMR employees. Therefore, the order issued in the above writ appeal cannot be made applicable to the petitioner.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.

6.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as part time Sweeper on 22.11.1977. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was appointed as part time employee on consolidated pay and not as full time employee. Thereafter, the petitioner was brought regular establishment on time scale of pay with effect from 24.03.2008. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012 after rendering a regular service of four years. The petitioner had submitted a representation to take 50% of the part time service to sanction pensionary benefits and filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15334 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018. This Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petiti