R. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order made in W.P.No.28196 of 2008, dated 17.07.2012, by which, the writ Court refused to declare the action of the respondents, in treating the period from 18.11.1973 to 04.04.1979, as eligible leave and later, as leave on loss of pay and not counted the period from 05.09.1967 to 31.08.1968, as qualifying service for pension, as arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The writ Court also refused to direct the Secretary to the Government, Transport Department, 1st respondent herein, to count the said period as duty and qualify the same for pension and to pay the petitioner, monthly pension with effect from 01.01.1988, with all arrears and all consequential benefits, together with interest.

(2.) Material on record discloses that the petitioner joined the erstwhile Transport Department, as Driver on 5.9.67. He was made permanent, with effect from 1.9.68. He suffered paralytic attack and applied for leave from 18.11.73. Initially, he was granted medical leave for six months, without loss of pay. As he was under treatment for paralysis, he could not join duty and extended the leave. Thereafter, he submitted his resignation on 31.01.75 and that the same was accepted by the Department. In the meantime, the Government took a policy decision to transfer the transport employees to the newly formed State owned Transport Corporation. In order to persuade the employees to give up their status as Government servants, the Government have offered to pay pension. In case, the employees, who did accept the offer and get absorbed in the newly formed Transport Corporation, before their retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation, 1.5.1975 has been fixed as the date fixed for absorption of employees in the State owned Transport Corporations.

(3.) According to the appellant, realising the mistake in submitting resignation, the petitioner has submitted a letter, dated 16.07.1976, withdrawing the earlier letter, dated 31.01.1975 and requested the Corporation to permit him to join duty, as he was fully recovered from Paralysis. His request was rejected, vide order, dated 07.03.1978. However, on appeal, his request was accepted and consequently, on 27.03.1979, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin duty. The period of absence was treated as leave, to which, the petitioner was entitled.