Eligibility for pension under Old Pension Scheme requires continuous service; interruptions and temporary appointments disqualify claim.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she having SSLC educational qualification with type writing qualification both in Tamil and English and is registered with the employment exchange in the year 1981; that her name was sponsored for typist post (temporary) in Commercial Taxes Department, Tiruvannamalai; and that she was appointed as temporary typist vide proceedings dated 11.01.1990; that she worked as typist at various offices of the Commercial Taxes Department from the date of joining for a period of six years and three months; and that thereafter, she was appointed as temporary typist in the Judicial Department at Judicial Magistrate Court – I, Tiruvannamalai and served as typist for 2 years 4 months and 7 days.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had applied for regular post of typist through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission through proper channel and got selected as typist and posted in the Commercial Taxes Department after being relieved from the Judicial Department in the afternoon on 22.12.2010; that on joining the Commercial Taxes Department on 23.12.2010, she had worked as regular typist till she retired from service on 31.05.2018; and that since, she had joined the Commercial Tax Department on 11.01.1990 worked in the Commercial Taxes Department, she is eligible for being governed by the Old Pension Scheme by considering her employment with the Commercial Tax Department.

4. The petitioner further contended that since, she had worked in a temporary capacity initially in the Commercial Taxes Department and thereafter in the Judicial Department, the period of service rendered on a temporary basis would be eligible for being counted as qualifying service for the grant of pension, and also that on account of she having joined initially in the Commercial Taxes Department on 11.01.1990, she is eligible to be granted pension under the Old Pension Scheme as per Rule 3 (o) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rule.

5. Petitioner further contended that since, the respondents have placed her under the New Pension Scheme by taking her date of joining as 23.12.2010, she had approached the second respondent and submitted her representation dated 29.10.2018, seeking for her past service in the Commercial Taxes Department to be reckoned for the purpose of being covered by the Old Pension Scheme; and that the second respondent by his communication dated 22.11.2018 rejected the said representation stating that temporary service period from 17.01.1990 to 13.11.1995(in Commercial Tax Department) and 16.07.2007 to 22.10.2010 (in Judicial Department) cannot be considered and the service of the petitioner from 23.12.2010 to 31.05.2018 alone is eligible for pension, and that too under the New Pension Scheme introduced with effect from 01.04.2004.

6. Petitioner further contended that the aforesaid rejection by the second respondent is contrary to Rule 11 (1) of the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES (in short as “Pension Rules”) as her services have commenced on 11.01.1990 when she was first appointed in a temporary post in the Commercial Taxes Department as a typist.

7. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2018.

8. Counter affidavit on behalf of the second respondent is filed.

9. The second respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary typist; that her services were terminated vide proceedings dated 13.11.1995 for want of vaca