Madras High Court
Essakki vs Thasildar on 5 November, 2008
Author: S.Nagamuthu
Bench: S.Nagamuthu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P(MD)No.7699 of 2007 1.Essakki 2.Paradesi Thevar 3.Pitchiah Thevar ... Petitioners Vs. Thasildar, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.B6/3552/07, dated 26.03.2007 and to quash the same and direct the respondent to sanction the pensionary benefits to the petitioners from the date of retirement. !For Petitioners ... Mr.V.Kannan ^For Respondent ... Mrs.R.Anitha Additional Government Pleader ********* :ORDER
************* The petitioners are retired Village Assistants. Originally, according to them, 40 years ago, they were appointed as Village Servants. The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings in Roc.No.A3/12584/75, dated 28.02.1976, issued orders regularizing the services of all the Village Servants of Tirunelveli Taluk under amended Rule 18(b) of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules of 1970 and in the same order, it was stated that they were deemed to have been appointed on a permanent basis against the vacancies with effect from the date of the said order, i.e., 28.02.1976. Subsequently, the Village Servants were absorbed as Village Assistants as per the Rules and brought under the regular establishment with effect from 01.06.1995. The Government issued Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules of 1995 with effect from 28.02.2006, by issuing G.O.(3D)No.9, Revenue Ser 7(1) Department. The petitioners in this case retired from service on 30.09.1996, 30.09.1996 and 30.06.1996 respectively. Thereafter, they made claim for pensionary benefits. But the Tahsildar, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.B6/3552/07, dated 26.03.2007, has rejected the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have come forward with the present Writ Petition.
2. The main ground on which the Tahsildar has rejected the claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners had not put in the required number of qualifying service, namely five years. According to the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules of 1995, to become eligible to get pension benefits, one should have completed at least five years and to get full pension, ten years or more. Since the petitioners' services were regularized only with effect from 01.06.1995 and since they retired shortly after that, according to the respondent, the petitioners are not eligible for the pension benefits. In the counter filed by the respondent also, the said stand has been taken.
3. I have considered the rival submissions.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners' services were regularized as Village Servants with effect from 28.02.1976. They were brought into the regular establishment with effect from 01.06.1995. Thus, the respondent should have taken into account their services between 28.02.1976 to 01.06.1995 also as qualifying service. This is the view taken by this Court consistently in number of judgments. In Chinna Alagi, O.A. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006(5) CTC 320, a learned Judge of this Court, in paragraph-7 of the judgment, has held as follows:
"7. As far as the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground that he is a contingent staff is concerned, as per G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department dated 23.06.1988, which is referred in the impugned order, service rendered as a contingent staff can be taken into account for calculating the qualifying service for grant of regular pension. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he had retired from service prior to this Government Order. But, the object of granting pension is to enable the retired Government Servant to have means of livelihood till his or her death. Admittedly, the petitioner had served, even as per the impugned order, for a period of 21 years. But, throughout, he was kept as a contingent staff. Since there was a need, without break, continuously, the petitioner was allowed to work for a period of 21 years. In spite of 21 years of service, since he was retained as a contingent staff, certainly, he could not have received the pay paid to regular employees. Having extracted work from an employee for a period of 21 years and retaining him as a contingent staff in spite of the need for his service and denying the due benefits, which he would have received otherwise, that too, in the matter of sanitary workers, who are last grade servants in the Panchayat Union is, in my opinion, unsustainable. ...................."
5. Similarly, the same view has been taken in S.Subramanian vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.15258 and 15468 of 2006, dated 18.07.2007, wherein after having a survey of number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a learned Judge of this Court has held that the period of service rendered prior to the regularization should also be taken into account for pension benefits. That is precisely the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. In A.P.Srivastava v. Union of India and ors., reported in 1996(1) LLJ 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Pension is not a charity or a bounty not it is conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long service and is often described as deferred portion of payment for past services. It is in fact in the nature of social security plan provided for a superannuated Government Servant. If a temporary Government Servant who has rendered 20 years of service is entitled to pension, if he voluntarily retires, there is no justification for denying the right to him when he is required to retire by the employer in the public interest. In other words, the condition precedent for being entitled to pension in case of a temporary Government Servant is rendering of 20 years of service."
6. In the case on hand, there is no factual dispute that the petitioners did not have such qualifying service, if the period of their services with effect from their regularization as Village Servants, namely from 28.02.1976 is also taken into account. If the said service from 28.02.1976 is computed, then there cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are liable for pension benefits under the Scheme. Thus, the impugned order is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order of the respondent dated 26.03.2007 is set aside and the respondent is directed to process the pension papers of the petitioners and issue appropriate consequential orders, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioners satisfy the other requirements. No costs.
SML To Thasildar, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli.