Madras High Court
V.Gurumurthy vs The Principal Secretary To
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.02.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : .10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.3089 of 2017
V.Gurumurthy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Finance,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd
respondent in letter No Oo.Mu.59954/B4/2016, dated 24.11.2016 and to quash
the same and in consequence thereof, to direct the respondents to take into
account the service of 8 years rendered by him in the Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai, for pensionary benefits and grant the arrears.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the letter, dated 24.11.2016 of the 3rd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to take into account the service of 8 years rendered by him in the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai, for pensionary benefits and grant the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 arrears.
2. The petitioner was having qualification to be appointed as Typist / Steno Typist and was initially appointed in Revenue Department at Secretariat, Chennai, on 11.12.1961. On 16.06.1969, the petitioner has resigned the said post in order to join the Madras Fertilizer Limited as Stenographer and served until 12.12.1972. The petitioner was not in any service from 13.12.1972 to 04.08.1974. Again, the petitioner resigned from the said post and joined the Government service on 05.08.1974 as Assistant Training Officer at Polytechnic College, Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer and retired from service on 30.06.1998. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent through the Principal of the College and the 3rd respondent, vide letter, dated 24.11.2016, rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner had resigned the said post and he is not eligible for the benefit. The respondents have 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 calculated the service from 05.08.1974 to 30.06.1998 and granted the terminal benefits to the petitioner including the pensionary benefits. However, the period of service rendered in the Revenue Department from 11.12.1961 to 15.06.1969 was not taken into account. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that when the petitioner resigned from the Revenue Department, the said resignation letter, dated 10.06.1969, was accepted and it was categorically stated in the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits and all his previous government service is forfeited. After joining the Government service in the year 1974, the petitioner had attained superannuation on 30.06.1998. The petitioner submitted a request to calculate the service rendered in the Revenue Department, but the same was rejected by invoking Rule 41 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. Moreover, the petitioner has joined as Stenographer in Madras Fertilizers Limited on 17.06.1969 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 and worked until 12.12.1972. Thereafter, he was appointed as Instructor in a Government Polytechnic College on 05.08.1974. Hence, there is a break in service from 16.06.1969 to 04.08.1974. The petitioner has not taken up another appointment under the Government immediately after his resignation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to count the service prior to his resignation as per rules and the impugned order, dated 24.11.2016 is legal sustainable and the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The service particulars of the petitioner are as under:
Service in Revenue Department: 11.12.1961 to 15.06.1969 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 Service in Madras Fertilizer Limited: 16.06.1969 to 12.12.1972 Not in any service: 13.12.1972 to 04.08.1974 Service as Assistant Training Officer at Polytechnic College: 05.08.1974 to 30.06.1998
6. When the petitioner had resigned from Revenue Department the respondents have clearly stated that all previous government services are forfeited and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"The attention of Thiru. V. Gurumurthy is invited to Rule 41 of the General Rules for the Madras State and Subordinate Services and he is informed that by his resignation, he forfeits not only the service rendered by him in the Madras Secretariat Service, but also all his previous service, if any, under this Government.” The Rule 41 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules states that all previous service would be forfeited and the relevant portion is extracted 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 hereunder:
Rule 41. Consequences of Resignation - A member of a service shall if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service under the Government.
The reappointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply, and on such reappointment he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order.” When the resignation letter was accepted and an order is passed by invoking the Rule 41 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules that the previous service is forfeited, the petitioner without challenging the said order cannot claim any benefits.
7. The petitioner had taken a private service in between from 17.06.1969 and worked until 12.12.1972 and from 13.12.1972 to 04.08.1974, the petitioner 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 was not in any service at all. There is a clear break in service from 1972 to 1974. Even though if it is taken, the petitioner has served from 1969 to 1972, but any private employment cannot be taken into account for any purpose. If the petitioner has resigned from government service in the year 1969 and has taken up another Government service with break in service, the petitioner may be entitled to be considered to condone the break in service. But the petitioner had taken up private employment and hence the break in service cannot be condoned.
8. If the petitioner after resigning from government service in the year 1969 and had taken up another government service, then the claim of the petitioner might have been considered, even though the petitioner had resigned from service under proviso to Rule 23 Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the relevant portion of the rule is extracted hereunder:
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 “23. Forfeiture of service on resignation -
(1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service:
Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies".
In the present case the petitioner had not taken any government service to invoke the proviso clause. Moreover, the petitioner had resigned from the Revenue Department service prior to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief to count the said period since Rule 41 is clearly denying the claim of the petitioner.
9. The petitioner is receiving pension by calculating the service rendered from 05.08.1974 to 30.06.1998 i.e. for the service of 24 years. But the petitioner is seeking to calculate 30 years service in order to get more pension. But unfortunately, the petitioner is not entitled as stated supra. In the present case, the 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017 petitioner has not taken right decision at the right point of time. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No .10.2023
Internet : Yes (1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Tmg
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
To
1.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Finance,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
W.P.(MD)No.3908 of 2017
.10.2023
(1/2)
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis