Madras High Court
P.Pandian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 July, 2020
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.07.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
P.Pandian ...Petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.7938 of 2020
G.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner in
W.P(MD)No.7939 of 2020
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai.
3. The Accountant General (A&E), Pension,
O/o of the Accountant General (A&E), Pension,
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
4. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5. The Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Madurai District. ...Respondents
in both writ petitions
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.7938 of 2020: Writ Petition - filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/21
W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
directing the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension by
calculating the period of service rendered as permanent Vetti also
in accordance with Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules,
1995 and pay the benefits within the time fixed by this Court.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.7939 of 2020: Writ Petition - filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension by
calculating the period of service rendered as permanent Thalayari
also in accordance with Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension
Rules, 1995 and pay the benefits within the time fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Kishor Kumar
(in both)
For R1,R2,R4 & R5: Mr.J.Padmavathi Devi,
(in both) Special Government Pleader
For R3 : P.Gunasekaran
(in both)
COMMON ORDER
The prayer sought for in these writ petitions are for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the petitioners' pension by calculating the period of service rendered as permanent Vetti and Thalayari and also in accordance with Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 and pay the benefits within the time fixed by this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
2. Heard Mr.V.S.Kishor Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2,4 & 5 and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Since the prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same, a common order is being passed.
3. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7938 of 2020 was appointed as Village Vetti on permanent basis on 12.07.1979 at Thethangulam Village. Later, he was absorbed in the post of Village Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 with time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995. He served with the fifth respondent Taluk and he on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service as Village Assistant, on 31.05.2018, of Narasingham 2nd Bit Village. Accordingly, he rendered service for 38 years, 10 months and 19 days. Out of this service, from 12.07.1979 to 31.05.1995 i.e., 15 years, 10 months and 19 days he was serving as Vetti and from 01.06.1995 till his superannuation i.e., for 22 years, 11 months and 30 days he served as Village Assistant. Therefore, combined together with these two services, his pension has to be modified according to Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
4. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7939 of 2020 was appointed as a Temporary Village Thalayari on 01.03.1974 and thereafter, he was appointed as Permanent Village Thalayari for Arumbanoor Thuyaneri Village Group with effect from 05.08.1974. Later, he was absorbed in the post of Village Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No. 625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 with time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995. He served with the fifth respondent Taluk and he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service as Village Assistant on 30.06.2014 of Arumbanur I Bit Village. Accordingly, he rendered service for 40 years, 3 months and 29 days. Out of this service, from 01.03.1974 to 31.05.1995 i.e., 21 years, 2 months and 31 days he was serving as Thalayari and from 01.06.1995 till his superannuation i.e., for 19 years and 29 days he served as Village Assistant. Therefore, combined together with these two services, his pension has to be modified according to Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Since the said request made by the petitioners have not been considered despite several representations having been made by the petitioners in this regard, they have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department http://www.judis.nic.in 4/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 dated 06.07.1995 the petitioners along with similarly placed persons have been brought under regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995 and only that alone has been taken into account for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the past service rendered from the date of appointment till 31.05.1995 has not been taken into account and in this regard, atleast 50% of the past service prior to 01.06.1995 have to be taken into account and in this regard, a number of cases have been filed before this Court, where orders have been passed and the matter also brought to the Division Bench of this Court, where also the issue has been decided and concluded to state that the Village Assistants, who have been brought under the regular time scale of pay from 01.06.1995 are entitled to get 50% of earlier service period to be calculated for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits and this issue, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is concluded, accordingly, the benefit extended to various other similarly placed, that of the petitioners can also be extended to the petitioners, in this aspect, accordingly, they are entitled to get the relief as sought for in these writ petitions.
6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2,4 & 5 as well as the Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent have made vehement http://www.judis.nic.in 5/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 contention that, as per Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 their service can only be treated as part time Government service, therefore, based on the said service, these people cannot seek the benefit of calculating 50% of the past service as part of pensionable service.
7. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that, even though some of the cases gone for appeal before the Division Bench, where the orders passed by the Single Bench in various writ petitions accepting the stand of the petitioners, are confirmed, still some issues are there and some grey areas are to be cleared and therefore, some more appeals are filed. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, the petitioners case also can be one of such cases, where, the issues is yet to be conclusively decided. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for herein.
8. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2,4 & 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 6/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020
9. At the outset, in the considered opinion of this Court, the issue raised in these writ petitions is no more res integra. I had some occasions where similar plea raised by various petitioners like the petitioners herein to calculate 50% of the earlier service rendered by them prior to 01.06.1995 as part of pensionary service, have been considered and orders were passed. Number of such cases can be given as precedent and as a model case, one of such case, where two writ petitions have been decided by myself are quoted herein in W.P(MD)Nos.16896 and 16921 of 2018 in the matter of Sethurama Pandiyan and S.Muniyandi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department and others, I have passed the detailed order on 31.07.2018, where by following my earlier order dated 10.07.2018 in W.P(MD)No.14245 of 2018, all these issues now raised by both sides have been considered elaborately by following the earlier orders of this Court including some Division Bench Judgments and I allowed those writ petitions. For the benefit of recapitulate the same, certain portion of my judgment cited above is extracted hereunder:-
“42.Insofar as these Village Assistants are concerned, exactly, same issue had been dealt with by a learned Judge of this Court in a batch of cases in W.P. (MD)No.12521 of 2016 etc., batch in Udaiyar Vs. The Accountant General (A&E) Pension, Chennai and others. In the said order, the learned Judge of this Court, after having considered all these aspects, has passed the following order:-
“12.Despite consequential Government orders http://www.judis.nic.in 7/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 and judgments implementing several judgment of this Court in similar Writ Petitions filed by Thalayari/Village Assistant”, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent referred to the coutner affidavit of the first respondent and submitted that the Government introduced Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995, and brought them under the Special time scale of pay. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to rely upon the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, as they were covered by the Special Rules in Tamill Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995. Even the judgment referred above, would indicate that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995, provide for computing the length of service that was rendered by the petitioners therein as temporary, officiating and permanent service as qualifying service.
13.This Court is not inclined to accept the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. As a result, all the above Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, by taking into account of the period of service rendered by the petitioners prior to 01.06.1995 for the purpose of calculating pension. The respondents are directed to complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
43.Even though Rule 4(a) of the Rules, 1995 does not restrict that only 50 % of the past service rendered by the Village Assistants before they brought under time scale of pay and regularised from 01.06.1995, alone shall be taken into account and the rule, has provided for the entire service, whether temporary or officiating or permanent shall be reckoned as qualifying service in computing length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity, this Court cannot give any interpretation or meaning to calculate the entire past service rendered by these Village Assistants as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
44.The reason being that, for all Government employees, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 would be made applicable. Rule 11(4) of the said Rules provides that half of the service rendered by the State Government employee under non-provincialised service http://www.judis.nic.in 8/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 shall be allowed to be accounted for pensionary/Retirement benefits along with regular service subject to certain conditions.
45.Only by virtue of Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, those who rendered service in non-pensionable service or they rendered before they brought under regular time scale of pay whether to be calculated for the purpose of full pension for those employees, was answered in the said rule, whereby, half of the service i.e., 50 % of the said service rendered by the employees, who were under non-
provincialised service shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
46.Herein, the case on hand, the stand of the respondents that, prior to 01.06.1995, the petitioners, since had not been working in pensionable service, their service rendered all these years till 31.05.1995 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
47. If Rule 11(4) is applied to these cases, certainly, atleast 50% of the past service rendered by these Village Assistants, like, the petitioners would be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
48.Since the Special Pension Rules i.e., Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995 has been issued with effect from 01.06.1995, the pension proposals can be dealt with only under these Special Rules insofar as the Village Assistants are concerned.
49.However, if reading conjointly rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995, it can be easily understood that, the intention of the rule makers is to provide full or maximum pension to the extent the employees entitled by calculating or taking into account the past service rendered by such employee during the non-pensionable service or period. The said intention of the rule makers cannot be deprived by giving different interpretation than the one ought to be interpreted, by giving direct meaning of the said Rules.
50.In that situation, the Rule 4(a) of the Special Rules, even though does not restrict that only 50% of the past service in non-pensionable service shall be taken into account, by taking clue from 4(a) of the http://www.judis.nic.in 9/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 Special Rules, which would be applicable to the Village Assistants, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit by compelling authorities to take entire past service prior to 1995, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the positive view to be taken in this regard is that, these petitioners shall be entitled to seek 50% of the past service rendered by them prior to 01.06.1995, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
51.In view of these discussions and in view of the orders passed by this Court in number of cases, as has been referred to above and by taking into account the rule position in this regard and also taking into account the facts that, admittedly, all these petitioners had been appointed long back as Village Assistants and had been rendering service for several years before they have been brought under regular time scale of pay from 01.06.1995, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in all these cases:
(i) The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for providing full or eligible pension, by reckoning the temporary, officiating and permanent service of the petitioners rendered by them prior to 01.06.1995, from the date of their respective appointment, as qualifying service, for computing the length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity ;
(ii) While calculating the said service, only 50% of the said service rendered by them from the date of appointment till 31.05.1995 shall alone be considered as qualifying service ; and
(iii) By calculating the said service, whatever the eligible pension for each of these petitioners that shall be calculated and the same, with arrears, shall be paid by the respondents to the respective petitioners, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
52.In view of the above directions, the impugned orders passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.8714, 6744 and 6745 of 2018 are hereby quashed and the matters are remitted in respect of the said writ petitions to comply with the aforesaid directions.
53.With these directions, all these Writ Petitions are ordered, accordingly. No costs.”
12.In view of these discussions and in view of the http://www.judis.nic.in 10/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 orders passed by this Court in number of cases, as has been referred to above and by taking into account the rule position in this regard and also taking into account the facts that, admittedly, the petitioners had been appointed long back as Village Assistants and had been rendering service for several years before they have been brought under regular time scale of pay from 01.06.1995, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
(i) The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for providing full or eligible pension, by reckoning the temporary, officiating and permanent service of the petitioners rendered by them prior to 01.06.1995, from the date of their respective appointment, as qualifying service, for computing the length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity ;
(ii) While calculating the said service, only 50% of the said service rendered by them from the date of appointment till 30.11.1998 shall alone be considered as qualifying service ; and
(iii) By calculating the said service, whatever the eligible pension for the petitioners that shall be calculated and the same, with arrears, shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioners, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.In view of the above directions, the matter is remitted to the respondents.
14.Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
10. Subsequently, it seems that, some different views had been taken by Writ Courts, where the stand of the respondents seems to have been accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court and passed orders. Against which, the aggrieved party i.e., http://www.judis.nic.in 11/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 the petitioners therein preferred Intra Court appeals in two set of cases.
11. In the first set of case in W.A(MD)Nos.1390 to 1397 of 2019 and the second set of case in W.A(MD)Nos.1388 of 2019 etc., batch, a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and two others vs. M.Chellasamy and another and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and two others vs. M.Shanmugaiah and another has separately passed orders.
12. In the two set of orders passed by the Division Bench, the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A(MD)Nos.1390 to 1397 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019 can be usefully referred to herein:-
“2. It is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that an identical issue was considered by this Court and the writ appeals filed by the State in W.A.(MD)Nos.1254 and 1255 of 2019 have been dismissed by order dated 19.11.2019. In the said judgment we followed the earlier order of this Court in the case of C.Chellaswamy and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [W.P. (MD)No.3496 to 3498 of 2015), dated 10.07.2019. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
8. The argument of the learned counsels is by http://www.judis.nic.in 12/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 referring to the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983. Rule 3 of the said Rules is pressed into service to say that Village Servants being part-time Government servants, may take up part-time work or occupation, provided that such part time work or occupation shall not interfere with their legitimate duties as village servants and the previous permission is required to be obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned if the work or occupation is confined to a village and from the District Collector concerned, if the work or occupation extends beyond the village.
9. It is submitted that this Rule is a clear indication to show that all village servants are part time servants and that is why they have been permitted to undertake private rated employment or any other employment. At the first blush, this argument appears to be correct, but on a closer scrutiny we find otherwise. In fact, this argument was found favour by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(MD)Nos.3496 to 3498 of 2015, dated 10.07.2019 and those writ petitions were dismissed by the said order as against which those writ petitioners have preferred appeal and the appeals have been entertained. Since this ground has also been convinced, we test the correctness of the said submission in these writ appeals. The Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983, were framed in the year 1983 and it applies to all the village servants in the State of Tamil Nadu.
10. Rule 2 of the Conduct Rules states that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, as amended from time to time, shall apply to the village servants subject to the modification specified in Rule 3, which we referred above dealing with private trade or http://www.judis.nic.in 13/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 employment. Thus an exception has been made in respect of private trade or employment. This exception has been made by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, which has been made applicable in the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, which is only applicable to village servants except for the modification in Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules 1983. What is relevant to note is that the Government vide its order in G.O.Ms.No.141, Revenue, 21.01.1981, in exercise of the powers conferred by the provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has framed the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. Those Rules apply to all village servants throughout the State.
(i) Rule 2(a) defines to mean any person as Talayari (jiyahhp), Vetti(btl;o) or Nirganti(eph;fe;jp).
(ii) Rule 3 deals with method of recruitment, which is by direct recruitment.
(iii) Rule 5 prescribes qualifications for the Post.
(iv) Rule 6 empowers the appointing authority namely Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge to make temporary appointments where it is necessary in public interest.
(v) Rule 8 prescribes the General qualification,
(vi) Rule 9 deals with appeals against the orders of appointment.
(vii)Rule 10 deals with power of the revisional authority and
(viii) Rule 11 deals with probation.
(ix)Rule 12 provides for transfer of village servants either on administrative grounds or on request amounting to mutual transfer.
(x) Tenure of office of village servants is dealt with in http://www.judis.nic.in 14/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 Rule 13. The village servants on attaining the age of 60 years shall retire and shall not be retained in service.
Proviso to Rule 13(1) gives power to the Government to retire a village servant at any time after, he completed 30 years of service, provided, he issued three months notice. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 13 deals with the maximum period of casual leave in a year. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 13 empowers the appointing authority to grant leave without honorarium for a specified period.
(xi) Rule 14 deals with the amount to be paid on retirement. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 14 states that every person who ceases to hold the post of part-time village servant by reason of sub-rule (i) of rule 13, shall be paid an amount for the total service put in by him as part-time village servant and such amount shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 14. Thus, for the first time, in Rule 14(1), the terminology part- time village servant has been mentioned and this is referable to Rule 13(1), which fixed the tenure of office and proviso under the sub-rule provides that the Government may retire a village servant before the age of 60 years ie., after he has completed 30 years of service, provided, he is put on notice. In such cases, when the power is exercised, the emoluments which are payable to such part-time village servant is to be computed in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 14. Similar indication is also found in the proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 14 and also the definition of total service under the said proviso, which states that total service shall not include any period during which a part-time village servant was on leave either casual leave or absent without authorisation or under suspension.
(xii). Rule 15 deals with resignation which does not http://www.judis.nic.in 15/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 specify it as part-time village servants, but nomenclature is only village servants. Similarly, place of residence also refers to a village servant and the part-time village servant has not been specifically mentioned.
11. Therefore, in our considered view, the interpretation sought to be made before us by referring the Conduct Rules, 1983 and more particularly Rule 3 thereunder to state that all village servants are deemed to be part-time servants. However, this argument is not acceptable. More or less an identical issue was raised before the Honourable Division Bench in the case of the District Collector, Nagercoil and another vs. K.Raman Nair in W.A.No.16 of 2009 and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed and at this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the following finding:
“7.The persons who were appointed as per the proceedings dated 21st July, 1975 cannot be guided pursuant to the order of regularisation contained in G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 6th July, 1995. Even the said Government Order says that the services of persons appointed as part-time Village Assistants were regularised in the time scale of pay of Rs.600-10-750. If the writ petitioner was appointed on 21st July, 1975, along with others, on temporary basis in the scal of pay fixed for Village Assistants, the respondents cannot deny pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner and others who were so appointed along with him, giving reference to G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 6th July, 1995, as payment of pension is guided by statutory rule. Therefore, the said Government Order 625, Revenue Department, dated 6th July, 1995 is applicable only to those who were initially appointed as part-time Village Assistants and subsequently given Full Time appointment by providing scale of pay to the post of Village Assistants at Rs. 600-10-750 and not to those, like the petitioner, who were already temporary Village Assistants in the regular scale of pay.”
12. Apart from the above decision, there are various http://www.judis.nic.in 16/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 other decisions of the Honourable Division Benches and Honourable Single Benches and many of which are stated to have been implemented. Therefore, in our considered view, the decision in the case of C.Chellaswamy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in W.P(MD)Nos.3496 to 3498 of 2015, dated 10.07.2019 , rejecting the prayer sought for in the writ petition does not lay down the correct legal principles. More so, in the light of the earlier decisions of the Honourable Division Benches as pointed out by us earlier, mere reference of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, which grants permission for part-time village servants to take up part-time work or occupation, will not term all the employments as part-time employments. Furthermore, the Government had taken into consideration the nature of working conditions and then took a policy decision to bring them into regular time scale of pay. Thus, considering all these factors, we are of the view that the order passed in the writ petitions does not call for any interference. In the result, these writ appeals stand dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. ”
3. The above legal position, which been laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in various decisions, is not disputed. Thus following the above, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
13. After having gone through these two judgment of the Division Bench, it has become quite clear that the issue raised by http://www.judis.nic.in 17/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 the petitioners opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for other respondents is no more res integra.
14. Specifically, the point urged by the respondents side have already been decided in number of cases, especially, in the cases referred to above, where the Division Bench has taken a specific stand that the said arguments touching upon Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 would no way helpful to the respondents to argue that these kind of petitioners are not entitled to get 50% of service rendered prior to 01.06.1995 as pensionary benefits.
15. In view of the settled legal position by more than one judgment of the Division Benches of this Court followed by a number of orders passed by the Writ Courts, I have no hesitation to hold that, the petitioners in these writ petitions and also the issue raised by them is covered by the said decisions of this Court, therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit as they have sought for in these writ petitions. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions, with the following directions:
“ that the petitioners service rendered by them prior to 01.06.1995 i.e., 12.07.1979 to 31.05.1995 and 01.03.1974 to http://www.judis.nic.in 18/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 31.05.1995 respectively i.e., 50% of the said service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the total pensionable service of the petitioner and accordingly, their pensionary benefits have to be refixed and recalculated and the same shall be paid to the petitioners including arrears. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents 1,2,4 & 5, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the third respondent accordingly shall act upon and continue to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioners with the revised rate.”
16. With these directions and orders, these writ petitions are allowed to the terms indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Am 28.07.2020
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No http://www.judis.nic.in 19/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
3. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
4. The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20/21 W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 R.SURESH KUMAR ,J.
am Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.7938 & 7939 of 2020 Dated:
28.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 21/21