E JEBAMANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the respondent Government in G.O.(2D)No.126, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 9.3.2009 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to sanction pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules by granting relaxation for the services rendered by the petitioner in the State service from 10.01.1975 to 20.06.1991 with arrears of pension and other allowances.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was recruited as Grade II Police Constable and joined service on 10.01.1975 in Tirunelveli District. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 05.01.1983. During the year 1990, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Security Officer in the Directorate of Estate Management, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai. The petitioner was selected for the said post. He had resigned his post in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and was relieved accordingly on 20.06.1991. Thereafter, he took up the assignment as Assistant Security Officer in the Department of Atomic Energy on 01.07.1991. When he was working as Assistant Security Officer at the Department of Atomic Energy, he was given a show cause notice, dated 24.5.1993 asking him to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he had suppressed certain information. He had given a reply. But, however, not satisfied with his reply, the petitioner's services came to be terminated with effect from 11.11.1993 by invoking Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules.

(3.) IT is not clear as to how the petitioner has any right to claim pension when he had resigned and taken up employment with the Central Government and on being terminated, seeks for grant of pension when there is no specific rule enabling him to get such pension. The petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of pension and that any direction if issued will be contrary to the statutory pension rules. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.