Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

http://www.judis.nic.in 2.2.The version of the Petitioner is that while serving as Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, he projected an application seeking 'Voluntary Retirement' on completion of more than 12 years of service in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. Based on his application, he was promoted to proceed on 'Voluntary Retirement' from service with effect from 26.05.2012 Afternoon. As a matter of fact, the 3rd Respondent, while calculating his Pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity including the commutation of pension, had clearly indicated that he had put in Net Qualifying Years of Service of 16 years 2 months and 23 days.

12.Indeed, it is to be relevantly pointed out that in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the G.O.Ms.No.56, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 19.01.2011 reads as under:

“4.In the reference eighth read above, http://www.judis.nic.in the Supreme Court of India, in their order dated 26.7.2010 and 2.8.2010 have accepted the Report of the Justice, Thiru E.Padmanabhan Committee with regard to Domestic Help Allowance, Medical Allowance and retirement benefits such as Additional Quantum of Pension, Commutation of Pension, Gratuity/Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Encashment of Leave, Family Pension, with effect from 01.01.2006 with two changes. The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi has approved the recommendation of Justice Thiru.E.Padmanabhan Committee to continue with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations with regard to paragraphs 31(a),(d) and 36 of the report.

29.Insofar as the plea of the Petitioner that even assuming without admitting that the prohibition of the applicability of Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 to the Judicial Officers in G.O.(Ms.).No.56 dated 19.01.2011 and that such a prohibition cannot be relied upon to defeat the Petitioner's claim because of the reason that it is only an Executive Order and not the Rule etc., this Court is of the considered view that the G.O.(Ms.)No.56 dated 19.01.2011 was issued in the teeth of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 26.07.2010 and 02.08.2010 wherein the Report of the Hon'ble Justice E.Padmanabhan Committee with regard to the Domestic Help Allowance, Medical Allowance and Retirement http://www.judis.nic.in Benefits such as Additional Quantum of Pension, Commutation of Pension, Gratuity / Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Encashment of Leave, Family Pension, with effect from 01.01.2006 with two changes. In short, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved the recommendation of the Hon'ble Justice E.Padmanabhan Committee to continue with Hon'blr Justice Shetty Commission recommendations with regard to paragraphs 31(a), (d) and 36 of the Report. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Executive or Administrative Order cannot override the Statutory Rule viz., Rule 27, is not accepted by this Court.