M.Janarthanam v. Government Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD and M.P.No.1 of 2012 M.Janarthanam ..Petitioner Vs.
1.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore - 9.
3.
The Accounts Officer, Principal Accountant General, (A&E) Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.A5/21992/2011-1 dated 27.02.2012 and 3rd respondent in and by his proceedings P26/1/PPT 4806/4259 dated 24.04.2012 and quash the same and consequentially directing the respondents to count the service of the petitionerin the post of Karnam from the period 16.10.1974 to Page No.1 of 8
14.11.1980 and sanction pension and disburse the arrears along with interest.
For petitioner :
Mr.A.Sundaravadanan For R1 & R2 :
Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate For R3 :
Mr.Vijaya Shankar
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings dated 27.02.2012 in Na.Ka.A5/21992/2011-1 and P26/1/PPT 4806/4259 dated 24.04.2012 and direct the respondents to count the service of the petitioner in the post of Karnam from the period 16.10.1974 to 14.11.1980 and sanction pension and disburse the arrears along with interest. 2.
The facts in brief as culled out from the affidavit enclosed in this writ petition are as follows:
2.1.
The petitioner was appointed as Karnam in the Kunnathur Village, Chieiyur Taluk for the period 16.10.1974 to 21.10.1975 and he was transferred to Karivedu Village, Arakonam Taluk for the period 22.10.1975 to 14.11.1980.
Page No.2 of 8
2.2.
According to the ordinance of Government of Tamil Nadu, the post of Maniam and Karnam were abolished and subsequently, the petitioner was removed from the post of Karnam. As per Act 3 of 1981, the post of Village Administrative Officer was created and persons who posses the required qualifications could apply. While so, similarly placed persons who were removed from service as Karnam and who possessed the required qualifications, were also appointed to the post of Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner was also appointed as Village Administrative Officer and was working at various places. 2.3.
The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31.07.2008 and was receiving his pension. But, the petitioner's grievance is that his pension was calculated by taking into account the service rendered by him from the date of his appointment as a Village Administrative Officer and not by reckoning his service as a Karnam from 16.10.1974 to 14.11.1980. Hence, aggrieved, the petitioner addressed a representation to the second and the third respondents to count his service in the post of Karnam in the post of Karnam for the period 16.10.1974 to 14.11.1980 for the purpose of pension. Whereas, the petitioner's request was rejected stating that G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, Page No.3 of 8
dated 25.08.2009, is not applicable to him and hence, the service rendered by him in the post of Karnam cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining his qualifying service for computation of his pension. 3.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, has been amended and the amended Rule 11 (4) was not considered in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was paid an honorarium on monthly basis from the date of his initial appointment as Karnam but, the respondents failed to consider the amended rule and did not count the petitioner's service in the post of Karnam and hence, this writ petition seeking the relief as stated in the opening paragraph.
4.
When this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Vijaya Shankar, learned counsel for the third respondent, circulated a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. E.Balachandran, reported in (2021) 3 MLJ 92, the relevant portion of which is extracted for better appreciation and understanding: "18. We have already took note of the relevant Rules. A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983, clearly states the status and position of Writ Petitioners. Certainly, they come Page No.4 of 8
under the definition 'Village Assistants'. However, Rule 3, which facilitate a Village Servant to take job of part-time work or occupation, makes it abundantly clear that he is only a part-time Government Servant. Similarly, Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, which gives a succour to a parttime Government servant, as that of the respondents, gives a specific compensation. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules would show that a Village Servant/Assistant was having a part- time service alone.
19.Now, let us go into the subsequent Government Orders passed, followed by Rules viz., Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. We have already discussed the Government Order, which came into existence only at the instance of the respondents Village Assistants, who were working in such capacity as part timers. For the first time, under the said Government Order, a regular time scale of pay came into existence. This is a very important point to be noted with respect to the status of the respondents as part-time Talayaris and they have been brought into regular Government Service. Therefore, regular time scale of pay was fixed with effect from 01.06.1995. The subsequent Rules have been framed to take care of their interest. We may note that Rule 2 to reiterate the aforesaid position, which does not create any doubt in our mind.
Under Rule 7, the eligibility of a Village Assistant would arise only when a Village Assistant renders qualifying service. Similarly, under Rule 4(a), the length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity, temporary, officiating and permanent (fulltime) service alone should be reckoned as qualifying service. Now, this Rule has been given a go-bye. Resultantly, what the respondents (Talayaris) seek is a relief contrary to their regularization order, by which, they were brought under the regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995 and the Rules framed thereafter. Therefore, they cannot Page No.
approbate and reprobate and it is only on their request, part-time service was converted into fulltime service prospectively, creating the status of regular post with regular time scale of pay." 5.
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6.
The issue involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, i.e, whether the petitioner's service in the post of Karnam from 16.10.1974 to 14.11.1980 has to be reckoned while determining the qualifying service for the purpose of calculating his pension. 7.
The aforesaid issue is no longer res intergra in view of the Division Bench judgment in E.Balachandran, supra, relied upon by Mr.Vijaya Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent. 8.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for by him and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Page No.6 of 8
9.
In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. Connected M.P.is closed. No without costs.
23.02.2024 vca Index :
Yes/No Internet :
Yes/No Citation :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No To:
1.
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore - 9.
3.
The Accounts Officer, Principal Accountant General, (A&E) Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.
Page No.7 of 8
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vca 23.02.2024 Page No.8 of 8