M. THANKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is a peculiar case, where appointment extended to the petitioner foresaw a couple of litigations, as a result whereof, the petitioner was granted appointment as a Typist but has been denied counting of the period of her services prior to regular appointment for pensionary purposes. The grievance of the petitioner is that the denial is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and even otherwise the power of relaxation being available with the Government for counting the previous services, the denial overlooks the exercise of such power. It is further submitted that not only this, the principle of estoppel and acquiescence would come into play when in the very letter of appointment there was a clear recital that other benefits would not be available "except pensionary benefits". The submission therefore is that the impugned order is in the teeth of the aforesaid benefit to which the petitioner was entitled and which cannot be now denied under the garb of introduction of the new Contributory Pension Scheme.

(3.) The background in which the present writ petition has been filed assailing the rejection order dated 06.03.2019 is that the petitioner along with several others had been appointed to the post of Typist and other similar posts in the City Civil Court, Chennai. The initial appointment of the petitioner, which extended from 1999 till 2006 is clearly on temporary basis by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The service was terminable at any time without assigning any reason and was purely temporary.