P.NATARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dtd. 29/5/2016 and consequentially, to direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner taking into consideration of the date of regularization as 10/3/2001 with all consequential benefits including the interest on delayed retirement benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as NMR in the 5th respondent Municipality as Typist in the sanctioned post on consolidated pay vide order, dtd. 9/3/2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's service was regularized on 10/3/2000 and was brought under time scale of pay on 17/4/2001 by the 5th respondent vide his proceedings, dtd. 17/4/2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 8/4/2013 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28/11/2014. The contention of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner was paid the benefits of encashment of earn leave and leave on private affairs, the petitioner was not paid with the pensionary benefits so far. Hence, the petitioner submitted repeated representations. Finally, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings, dtd. 10/4/2015, forwarded proposal to the 3rd respondent. However, no action was taken on the pension proposal. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, vide his impugned proceedings, dtd. 29/5/2016, has returned the proposal stating that the petitioner's services in the cadre of Typist should be regularized only on 23/2/2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dtd. 31/12/2014. The petitioner contended that his service was regularized on 10/3/2001 and was brought under Time Scale of Pay. Hence, the reason in the impugned order is unwarranted. The petitioner further contended that G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dtd. 31/12/2014, was issued only in furtherance of the Hon'ble Full Bench Judgment of this Court made in the case of S.Dhanasekaran & 24 Others Vs Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary & Others reported in 2013 (6) CTC 593. The said G.O. will apply only in respect of the persons whose service was not regularized whereas in the petitioner's service was already regularized. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dtd. 31/12/2014, has no application.

(3.) The petitioner referred to one Mr.Padhamanaban working in Ramanathapuram Municipality has got his service regularized with effect from 27/5/2000, vide G.O.Ms.No.465, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dtd. 22/7/2015 and the said Padhamanaban, who is a similarly placed person like the petitioner. Moreover, the G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dtd. 31/12/2014, has only prospective application and would not have retrospective effect, which would be evident from the last paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dtd. 31/12/2014. The petitioner further contended that his service was regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dtd. 27/5/1999 and the G.O.Ms.No.125 is not the subject matter of Full Bench decision. The petitioner is neither governed by G.O.Ms.No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dtd. 30/6/1997 nor under G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dtd. 23/2/2006. These two G.O.s, were issued only in respect of sanitary workers, street light maintenance workers etc. Thus, the impugned order is wholly unreasonable and unwarranted. Hence, the petitioner prays to grant regularization with effect from 10/3/2001 and grant all monetary and pensionary benefits and pensionary benefits.