Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Thiruvanam Pillai on 20 October, 2014
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N. Paul Vasanthakumar, P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.906 OF 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary Animal Husbandry Department Chennai - 9. 2. The Director of Animal Husbandry DMS Compound Chennai - 6. 3. The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Animal Husbandry Madurai. 4. The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Madurai District. ... Appellants Vs. K.Thiruvanam Pillai ... Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.30756 of 2008, dated 4.7.2012. For Appellants : Mrs.A. Sri Jayanthi, Spl.Govt. Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Vasudevan JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) Heard Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants as well as Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.30756 of 2008, dated 4.7.2012, wherein the respondent has challenged the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.60, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department, dated 24.4.2007 and prayed for a direction to the appellants to count the temporary service of the respondent from 1.1.1981 to 16.7.1997 along with regular service for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits and pay all terminal benefits and pension from 1.11.1998 with interest. The learned Single Judge, noticing the fact about the employment of the respondent on daily wage basis, ordered to count the entire service as pensionable service. Against the said order, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.
3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition by the respondent are that he was appointed as casual labourer in the Animal Husbandry Department in the year 1981 and he served for more than 17 years without any blemish upto 16.7.1997 and on 17.7.1997, his service was regularised and he served upto 31.10.1998, viz., the date of his retirement. According to the respondent, he has served for 17 years. However, the appellants refused to pay the pension on the ground that the respondent was not having 10 years of pensionable service.
4. The contention of the appellants is that even assuming the casual labourer service from 1.1.1981 to 16.7.1997 is to be taken for pensionable service, only 50% of the said service can be calculated along with pensionable service from 17.7.1997 to 31.10.1998. As such, the respondent was having 8 years 3 months and 8 days of contingency service i.e. 50% of service for the period from 1.1.1981 to 16.7.1997, and 1 year 3 months and 15 days of regular service. The said casual service from 1.1.1981 to 16.7.1997 and regular service from 17.7.1997 to 31.10.1998 are certified by the Officer, who is present in Court, viz., G.Asokan, Superintendent, Animal Husbandry Department. If the said period is calculated as stated supra, the respondent is having the total service of 9 years 6 months and 23 days.
5. Rule 43 (2) (a) (3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 states that 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. In this case, the respondent's pensionable service comes to 9 years 6 months and 23 days. If 3 months period is taken as half years, 6 months should be treated as full year.
6. Similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.4071 of 2008, dated 11.9.2012 by following the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.27 of 2012, dated 13.2.2012, which was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.No.16119 of 2012, by order dated 10.5.2012.
7. Insofar as the Central Government employees are concerned, similar issue arose with respect to the calculation of 10 years of service under Rule 49 (3) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.45465 of 2002, dated 4.10.2007. Even though a person was having a regular service of 9 years 3 months and 23 days, considering the E.D. Staff service of 29 years, this Court directed grant of pension treating that the person as completed 10 years of qualifying service. The said judgment was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.No.13829 of 2008, which was also dismissed on 17.10.2008 and the said judgment was implemented by order dated 9.10.2009.
8. Again in W.P.No.22496 of 2009, dated 14.2.2013, a similar issue was considered and relief was granted, even though the said person was not having 10 years of pensionable service. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.72872 of 2012, dated 25.3.2013 also passed a similar order. The above said orders have been followed by the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us NPVJ was a member) in W.P.No.29896 of 2013 by order dated 6.12.2013. The said order was also confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court.
9. Similar issue was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in respect of an employee of the State Bank of Patiala with reference to Chapter IV Regulations 14 and 18 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 in the decision reported in (2014) 3 LLN 17 (SC) (State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Others), wherein the Supreme Court held that if there is a regulation to count six months and more period as one completed year as pensionable service and the employee concerned having minimum pensionable service, he is entitled to get pension.
10. Considering the said judgments and having regard to the fact that the total pensionable service as per the calculation of the department in this case itself comes to 9 years 6 months and 23 days, the said period should be taken as 10 years pensionable service for the purpose of grant of pension. The said 9 years 6 months and 23 days is calculated as per the particulars given by the Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department as stated supra.
11. The Veterinary Doctor/Assistant Director, Melur, has addressed a letter on 27.9.2007 to the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Madurai-20, wherein also it is stated that the respondent had served continuously from 1.1.1981 to 16.7.1997.
12. Considering the fact that the respondent has retired from service on 31.10.1998, the appellants are bound to sanction pension from 1.11.1998. The respondent is not entitled to get any interest from 1.11.1998, as his eligibility is settled only now.
13. In fine, the writ appeal is partly allowed with a direction to the appellants to sanction and pay pension and other retirement benefits to the respondent treating that he had completed 10 years of pensionable service as on 31.10.1998. The appellants are also directed to pay the arrears of pension from 1.11.1998, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes (N.P.V., J.) (P.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes 20.10.2014
kb
Note to Office:- Issue order copy on 3.11.2014.
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary
Animal Husbandry Department
Chennai - 9.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry
DMS Compound
Chennai - 6.
3. The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry
Animal Husbandry
Madurai.
4. The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry
Madurai District.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J.
AND
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
kb
W.A.No.906 of 2013
20.10.2014