LAWS(MAD)-2013-12-15

K.RAMAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Decided On December 05, 2013
K.RAMAN Appellant
V/S
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in the then M/s.Pandian Roadways Corporation. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Junior Manager. He was selected to the post of Junior Manager by the respondents. The petitioner's resignation with the erstwhile corporation was accepted on 17.07.1984. He joined the service in the office of M/s.Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli, as Junior Manager on 18.07.1984. He also received the gratuity amount from the erstwhile employer and the PF was transferred to the subsequent employer, to whom he was appointed as Junior Manager namely the respondents herein. The petitioner was granted pension after his retirement by taking into consideration all his past services rendered in the erstwhile employer, namely, M/s.Pandian Roadways Corporation along with the services rendered at then M/s.Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, which was subsequently merged with the respondents. However, after making payment for two years, the respondents stopped the payment of pension for the period in which the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at erstwhile employer namely, M/s.Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited. Accordingly, the excess pension said to have been paid to the petitioner by treating the services rendered in the earlier corporation was treated to be adjusted.

(2.) THE petitioner gave a representation to the Government which was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner having been resigned on 17.07.1984 and joined in the new services on 18.07.1984 is not entitled to count the service rendered with the earlier employer as there was a break in service. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, since it has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel also made one another submission stating that the order passed by the Government in the appeal made by the petitioner cannot be sustained as it is factually wrong to hold that there is a break of service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.(MD).No.11000 of 2005, dated 25.04.2011.