2024:MHC:2867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.Nos.366 & 376 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 1 of 2014 W.A.No.366 of 2014:

1.State of Tamil Nadu.

Represented by Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Appellants Vs.

P.Subramani ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.1122 of 2013 dated 11.11.2013 and allow the present writ appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Prem Kumar Government Advocate [For Forest]

For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Ramesh Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Vasudevan W.A.No.376 of 2014:

1.State of Tamil Nadu.

Represented by Secretary, Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Vellore District.

4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Accountant General, Office at Teynampet, Chennai – 18. ... Appellants Vs.

A.Kasi ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.25279 of 2013 dated 11.11.2013 and allow the present writ appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Prem Kumar Government Advocate [For Forest]

For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

COMMON JUDGMENT

[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The Intra-Court Appeals on hand have been instituted challenging the common order dated 11.11.2013 passed in the writ petitions.

2. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the respondents were initially appointed as temporary Plot Watchers and considering their length of service as temporary employees, the Government formulated a scheme for regularisation of these temporary employees and consequently their services are regularised with effect from 09.07.2012 and 12.07.2012 respectively in sanctioned post of Plot Watcher in the time scale of pay. 3. It is not in dispute that the initial appointment of the respondents were made not in a sanctioned post, but on temporary basis. Therefore, the initial appointment of the respondents were not under pensionable establishment under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

4. The Government framed a scheme for the benefit of these temporary employees as a concession. Accordingly, their services are subsequently regularised in sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay in the year 2012. Therefore, the temporary Plot Watchers were brought under the pensionable establishment only in the year 2012. By that time, the new pension scheme came into force and the cut-off date for old pension scheme is 01.04.2003. All the employees appointed / regularised after the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 are eligible to receive benefits under the contributory pension scheme and not under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (old pension scheme).

5. The relief sought for by the respondents are to count half of the services under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

6. Rule 11(2) in clear terms stipulates that “half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards qualifying service for pension along with the regular services subject to conditions”. However, the said Rule 11 would be applicable only if these temporary employees were appointed / regularised prior to the implementation of the new pension scheme i.e., on 01.04.2003. The employees appointed / regularised after

01.04.2003 are not falling under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

7. That being the legal position, application of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 to the employees regularised after the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 would not arise at all. Once these employees are eligible under the new pension scheme i.e., contributory