A PUGALENTHY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the letter No.29713/Pol XV/99/3 dated 14.05.99 passed by the respondent declining to count the service rendered by the petitioner in Tamil Nadu State Government for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was selected to the post of Sub-Inspector (Category - I) in the year 1967 and was appointed to the post on 29.06.67. After serving for about 11 years, he was promoted as Inspector of Police on out of seniority basis on 29.11.78. While serving as Inspector of Police, in response to the advertisement published in the news paper for the post of Investigating Officer in the nationalised bank by Banking Services Recruitment Board, Western Group, Bombay, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Investigating Officer in the banking service on 08.04.84 through police department and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Madras forwarded his application to the Director General of Police vide letter No.RC No.A1/12494/84, dated 23.04.84. Subsequently, the same was also forwarded to the Secretary, Banking Services Recruitment Board by the Director General of Police with endorsement dated 16.06.84. Since there was no objection shown to the petitioner's selection and appointment as Investigating Officer in the banking services, the petitioner attended the interview conducted by the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Western Group, Bombay and got selected to the post of Investigating Officer in Bank of India, Bombay. Thereafter, he has submitted his letter of resignation dated 12.12.84 to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, with a request to relieve the petitioner from the duty as Inspector of Police. In response to his request, the Director General of Police, by his proceedings dated 08.01.85, issued an order directing the Deputy Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption to relieve him from the police department. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from the police department from 31.01.85 and joined the banking service on 04.02.85. Since the petitioner has put in 17 years and 10 months of service from 29.03.67 to 31.01.85, the petitioner submitted a petition on 06.12.90 to the 2nd respondent requesting to take into consideration the services rendered by him in the Tamil Nadu Police Department for sanctioning pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits, but the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Director General of Police in his order in DD No.330/241390/TPD/93/90, dated 09.04.91 stating that he has resigned from the department after submitting his resignation and also giving undertaking that he will not claim any right over the past services. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 03.08.94 reiterating his earlier stand. The Director General of Police, in his letter dated 21.02.97, recommended the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of Rule 41 and also Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in favour of the petitioner, in pursuant to the order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.404, dated 06.06.91. In spite of the recommendation of the Director General of Police to the Government to count his service for pensionary benefits, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.404, dated 06.06.91 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner because of absorption in bank and the request for relaxation cannot be complied with. Aggrieved by the said order, the the petitioner submitted a review to the Government on 06.05.98 and the same was also rejected by letter No.50340/Pol.XV/98-1, dated 07.08.98 by the Government. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by the 1st respondent is unjust, illegal, irregular and unsustainable in law.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has failed to consider Rule 41 of the General Rules as well as Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in proper perspective. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and pleaded for issuance of direction to the respondent for the purpose of counting his past services for getting pensionary benefits.