Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs M. Palani on 18 January, 2011
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/01/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Appeal (MD) No.809 of 2010 M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010 1. The Secretary to Government, Transport (RW) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2. Deputy Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 3. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Panagal Building, Jennis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 4. The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2. .. Appellants vs M. Palani .. Respondent This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 24.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD)No.4073 of 2009. !For Appellants ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.Rahul :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.) This writ appeal is preferred by the Government, challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD)No.4073 of 2009, wherein the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.
2. The respondent herein was appointed as Conductor on daily wage basis in the then Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 21.12.1971 and he continued as daily rated employee till 30.9.1972. From 1.10.1972 the respondent was granted regularisation as Conductor. Since the respondent was appointed as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, after the formation of the Transport Corporation, the persons worked prior to 1.4.1982 in the Transport Department are entitled to get pension from the Government in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.42 Transport Department dated 27.5.2005.
3. When the respondent submitted application for the sanction of pension for his services rendered in the Transport Department, the same having not been considered, respondent earlier filed writ petition and this Court directed the appellants herein to consider the request of the respondent and pass orders. Thereafter the Government rejected the request stating that respondent's regular service is only nine years and six months and the respondent having not completed ten years of service, he is not entitled to get pension from the Transport Department. The said order was challenged by the respondent and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, against which the Government filed this writ appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the daily rated services rendered by the respondent from 21.12.1971 till 30.9.1972 was not taken note of to arrive at the eligibility of the appellant to get pension from the Transport Department and the respondent having not completed ten years of regular service, the impugned order was passed, which ought not to have been set aside by the learned single Judge and the writ petition should have been dismissed.
5. In answer to the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that 50% of the services rendered on daily wage basis from 21.12.1971 till 30.9.1972 has to be considered in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which clearly states that if a person is regularly employed on daily rate basis or on consolidated basis and he was absorbed permanently in the time scale of pay, half of such services shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. The learned counsel also submitted that if half of the services rendered by the respondent on daily wage basis is taken, the respondent will be getting another four months and 20 days of pensionable service, which comes to a total of nine years, ten months and twenty days. The learned counsel also submitted that Rule 43(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 states that if a person completed more than three months in a year the said period of three months should be rounded of as one half year of service, and on any event the respondent has completed more than ten years of service even ignoring the daily rated service by applying Pension Rule 43(3).
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent.
7. Rule 43(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 reads as follows, "Rule 43(3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service."
The said amendment to the rule was introduced through G.O.Ms.No.762 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 5.9.1994, which came into force from 1.1.1986.
8. Applying the said rule to the facts of this case and having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondent's half of the service rendered on daily wage basis should be taken for calculating pensionable service as per Pension Rule 11(2), we hold that the respondent is entitled to get pension as he has completed more than 10 years of pensionable service. There is no error in the order passed by the learned single Judge and hence we are unable to interfere with the said order.
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions is also dismissed.
vr