Non-provincialised, part-time service as a Thalayari cannot be reckoned for pensionary benefits for Village Assistants, as such service was in a non-pensionable establishment and not in a cadre post, failing the requirements for qualifying service under the applicable pension rules.

COMMON PRAYER:

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the orders dated 19.03.2018, passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.5746, 5747, 5748 & 5749 of 2018.

(In all W.As.)

For Appellants :Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,

Additional Advocate General

assisted by

Mr.S.R.A.Ramanachandran

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondents :

Notice Served & No Appearance

COMMON ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by

Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J]

1. These appeals have been filed to set aside the orders dated 19.03.2018, passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.5746, 5747, 5748 & 5749 of 2018.

2. The respondents were initially appointed as Thalayaris, which is a non-provincialised and part-time service. Subsequently, the said post of Thalayari was abolished and thereafter, the Government took a decision to accommodate the said 28,000 Thalayaris and appointed them as Village Assistants as per G.O.Ms.No.625 dated 06.07.1995, with effect from 01.06.1995 by redesignating the said post of Thalayari as a full-time post of Village Assistant and appointed eligible Thalayaris as Village Assistants. The writ petitioners were also absorbed as Village Assistants on 01.06.1995. After completion of their service without any blemish, they are retired as Village Assistants. For brevity and better appreciation of the case, the details of the petitioners’ service are tabulated as follows:

3. The writ petitioners claimed that the period of past service as Thalayari ought to be taken into account for computing pension. The Writ Court accepted the contention and allowed the writ petitions vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present intra-court appeals.

4. Thiru Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that as per the rules applicable under the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Pension Rules, 1995 and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 , 50% of the non-provincialised service cannot be taken into account. Earlier, this Court, till the decision in W.A.(MD) No.1629 of 2018 and batch (hereinafter referred to as the “ E. Balachandran case ”), had directed that 50% of the Thalayari service is be reckoned for pensionary purposes. The said illegality was rectified by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the E. Balachandran case vide order dated 26.02.2021, holding that the non-provincialised and part-time service of Thalayari should not be taken into account. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.15406/2021. The Writ Court failed to consider and follow the above judgment and also failed to properly construe the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Pension Rules, 1995 , and erroneously allowed the writ petitions by directing the Government to sanction pension by taking into account 50% of the service rendered by the writ petitioners prior to 01.06.1995 as Thalayaris. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General so