The court ruled that the suspension period cannot be regularized for pension benefits without a specific order from the Disciplinary Authority, especially when there is significant delay in seeking such relief.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant herein entered in the services of the respondent – Panchayat Board as Part-Time Clerk on 01.10.1967 and continued to be a part-time employee. He was given promotion as RWO Grade-II with effect from 08.12.1993. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2008.

2. Meanwhile, in view of the subsequent Government Order to regularize the services of the part-time employees by taking into account 50% of their part-time services, a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.7217 of 2015 etc., batch were filed before this Court and the appellant herein is also one among them. While disposing of the batch of writ petitions, by order dated 02.08.2017, the learned Single Judge directed the Government to regularize the services of the writ petitioners, who served as part-time employees or on temporary basis and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and communicate the same to the writ petitioners.

3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, his grievance was not only to regularize his services by taking into account 50% of his part- time service, but also to regularize the period of suspension, which he suffered due to the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

4. By taking advantage of the disposal of the batch of writ petitions on the issue of regularization of service by taking into account 50% of the part-time / temporary services, the appellant herein had requested the District Collector, Virudhunagar District, to regularize his suspension period also and pass appropriate orders.

5. The said request of the appellant was rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 27.06.2018. The said order came to be challenged by the appellant herein before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18160 of 2019.

6. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on considering the facts of the case and the relief sought for therein, by order dated 16.06.2023, dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:

“2. The petitioner was suspended on 24.07.2000 and was reinstated on 06.05.2001. The respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same had ended in imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect. On appeal, the respondents have modified the punishment, wherein, the stoppage of increment for 3 years was confirmed but without cumulative effect. Aggrieved over, the petitioner again preferred an appeal and the same was confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner attained superannuation on 30.04.2008. After lapse of 10 years, the petitioner made representation dated 07.05.2018, whereby the respondents after considering the same, has passed the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition after lapse of 10 years. The petitioner cannot endlessly litigate after retirement and also the petitioner has not explained the delay. Due to delay and latches, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained.”

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present writ appeal is filed stating that the order of the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions was challenged by the State by filing W.A.No.896 of 2019, but the same came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 06.07.2023. Therefore, the State cannot deprive the appellant herein to take into consideration the period of suspension, which he suffered due to the pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings, as he was deemed to be in service, while fixing the pensionary benefits.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition in W.P.No.7217 of 2015 filed by the appellant includes the prayer to regularize the period of suspension apart from to take into account 50% of the service rendered by him in the post of part-time Clerk along with regular service. Since the sai