SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (AGRICULUTE) Vs. D. ADIROUBANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, viz. the Government of Puducherry and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture and Research Institute, Karaikal are on Appeal against the order of the Writ Court directing payment of pension treating the first respondent as a Government Servant till date of his retirement i.e. 1/9/2012, after setting aside the orders of the fourth respondent dtd. 13/9/2012, 28/5/2012, 10/9/2012 and the order of the Secretary to Government, Agricutural Department dtd. 14/2/2012.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The first respondent joined as a Trainee in the Agricultural Department of Puducherry on 14/11/1973. He was promoted and posted as an Agricultural Officer on 8/9/1981 with effect from 24/6/1981. The Government of Puducherry started the second appellant Institute at Karaikal on 30/11/1987. The first respondent was deputed to serve in the said Institute from 5/11/1990 under an order of the Government dtd. 21/2/1991. On 11/9/1996 the first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor. He was provisionally absorbed as Assistant Professor on 20/3/1994. On 11/9/1996 orders were issued for permanent absorption of the first respondent as an Assistant Professor in Agricultural Entomology with effect from 5/11/1990. Consequent upon such absorption, the first respondent tendered his technical resignation to the Department of Agriculture of Puducherry on 26/5/1997.

(3.) Pursuant to such technical resignation, on 13/8/1997, the Agricultural Department of Government of Puducherry issued an office order indicating the Pro-rata retirement benefits granted to the first respondent and other Agricultural Officers who have been absorbed as Assistant Professors in the second appellant Institute. The employees were also required to exercise their option to receive the pro-rata retirement benefits in one lump sum or as monthly pension. On 13/1/1998, the first respondent sent a reply stating that he is willing to have the benefits of combined service under the Government and the second appellant Institute on the assumption that the second appellant Institute is having a pension scheme and therefore, required the Government to issue a corrigendum allowing him to exercise an option to receive the benefits of combined service. It is not in dispute that such corrigendum was not issued.