J BALAJI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner challenges the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.304 dated 27.05.2004 discontinuing the existing General Provident Fund Scheme with respect to the Government Servants appointed on or after 1st April, 2003 with a consequential prayer to recover from him the General Provident Fund subscription treating his earlier service from 17.11.1997 to 28.04.2003 for pensionary purpose. THE Background Facts:

(2.) THE Government of Tamil Nadu, as per proceedings dated 11.11.1996, sanctioned 384 posts of typists for appointment in the subordinate judicial service. However, no follow up action was taken to appoint eligible candidates for such appointments. THErefore, the concerned District Judges were permitted to make appointments on temporary basis. About 185 persons were appointed by the said method. THE remaining posts were filled up by giving appointment to those who had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange on temporary basis. THE Petitioner was one among such candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Vellore. He was appointed as Typist as per the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 13.11.1997. He joined the service on 17.11.1997. THE service of the Petitioner continued till 28.04.2003. In the meantime, regular selection was made through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. When action was taken to discontinue the service of temporary appointees, they have filed batch off Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos.894 to 898, 1810, 5176 and 5298 of 2000. THE issue was considered by the Division Bench and having found that there was lack of coordination between the Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which alone resulted in temporary appointments of typists, the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order to accommodate the typists engaged on temporary basis along with those who were recruited on regular basis. THE judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.09.2000 was implemented by the Government as per order under G.O.Ms. No.107 dated 31.01.2003. In accordance with the said Government Order, the Second Respondent issued the proceedings dated 13.03.2003 granting liberty to the Appointing Authorities to regularise the service of the temporary appointees. In the said proceeding, it was indicated that the appointment to the post of Typist would be treated as initial appointment and the temporary service rendered by the employees will not be considered for the purpose of service benefits, viz., pay protection, increment, seniority and promotion, except for pensionary benefits. In pursuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 31.01.2003 and the consequential proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 13.03.2003, the Petitioner was appointed as Copyist in the District Munsif Court at Sholingur in the existing vacancy as per order dated 29.04.2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore. THE offer of appointment was accepted by the Petitioner and he jointed the service on 30.04.2003.

(3.) THE Second Respondent has also filed a Counter Affidavit justifying the action taken by the Head of Office on account of the order in G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004. According to the Second Respondent, the Petitioner, having been appointed on 30.04.2003, the new General Provident Fund Scheme introduced by the Government alone is applicable to him and as such, there is no basis for his claim for the benefit of the General Provident Fund Scheme. Discussion: