R. VARADARAJAN Vs. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is the transferred O.A.No. 7086 of 2001 filed on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the second respondent dated 21.9.2001, and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to count half the period of service rendered by the petitioner under contingent establishment from 1.7.1966 to 25.4.1977 for granting pensionary benefits and for the purpose of arriving at net qualifying service for pension and consequently for grant of revised pension from 1.8.1998 onwards.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mazdoor temporarily under the National Malaria Eradication Programme, Attur on 29.1.1960 and thereafter he was appointed as Watchman cum Sweeper through proceedings dated 1.6.1968 by the Supervisory unit officer, N.M.E.P, Tiruchengode. After serving as Watchman cum Sweeper, the petitioner was appointed as peon (now designated as Office Assistant) in the unit office, N.M.E.P, Tiruchengode by the proceedings dated 7.10.1976. Subsequently, on the closure of N.M.E.P, the petitioner was ousted from service on 15.4.1977. Thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed as Last Grade Government Servant in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, where he worked from 19.5.1977 to 30.06.1977. Subsequently, he was appointed as Night Watchman in the Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Society with effect from 20.7.1977 and he served till 31.7.1998 and retired from service on the said day. After his retirement, while calculating the pension payable to the petitioner, the authorities have taken only 21 years 1 month and 24 days as net qualifying service of the petitioner i.e. from 19.5.1977 to 31.7.1998 without taking into consideration the service rendered by him prior to 25.4.1977. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is his services from 1.7.1966 to 25.4.1977 in the N.M.E.P have to be taken into consideration for computing the net qualifying service for pension. It is his case that the Government has passed G.Os permitting regularisation of service of Basic Health Workers and Health Inspectors under N.M.E.P appointed on daily wage basis with effect from the date of their initial appointment without monetary benefits so as to enable them to take into account such service for purpose of pensionary benefits. Thus, the petitioner, claiming to be similarly situated person, seeks for the relief of counting at least 50% of his service rendered as a contingent employee for the purpose of calculating the total period of service for pensionary benefits.

(3.) MR .Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 408 Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.8.2009, wherein the service rendered as non provincialised service, Consolidated pay, Honorarium, and Daily Wages were taken into account for the purpose of counting the total number of service for calculating the pension of the employees. When those services are taken into account for the purpose of counting the total number of service the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit. He further submitted that the petitioner had continuously worked from 4.2.1960 to 15.4.1977 for the period of 17 years as admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit as a contingent employee in the Public Health Department . Such 17 years service cannot be simply left out without giving any benefit out of it. The petitioner seeks only to count 50% of the said contingent service and therefore the artificial break of 23 days given by the Department cannot be construed as denying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 408. Learned counsel also relied on Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in support of his submission that the break, unless resulted through removal or dismissal from service, such interruption cannot stand in the way of counting the service of the petitioner for the purpose of granting the pension.