ALAGAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPALITIES, DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT AND THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Government Letter No. Mu.Mu. No. 11987/Na.O.Sa(1)05, dated 19.4.2005 and direct the respondents to sanction regular pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 186 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.9.1995 from 1976 with interest.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Sanitary Worker in the 4th respondent Municipality from June, 1950 to 30th June, 1976. On 30.6.1973, though she was ordered to retire, again she was permitted to work till 30.6.1976 on production of medical certificate. Petitioner has put in 26 years of continuous service. She applied for pensionary benefits and the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner retired only as a contingent staff and therefore she is not eligible to get pensionary benefits. When petitioner submitted representations, 4th respondent on 29.12.2004 forwarded the same to the second respondent. The third respondent sent a reply stating that the petitioner had not completed ten years of service from the date of regularisation and so she was not eligible for pensionary benefits. According to the petitioner, the Sanitary Workers were regularised by G.O.Ms. No. 2469 Health and Family Planning Department, dated 1.10.1973 and as per G.O.Ms. No. 270 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.3.1990, adhoc pension was ordered to be sanctioned to the persons who retired before 14.1.1990 on par with those who retired after 14.1.1970. When the petitioner applied to the 4th respondent to intimate the reason for non-sanction of pension under the Right to Information Act, the 4th respondent replied that the petitioner worked as contingent staff from 1950 to June, 1976 and records were not maintained. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order and for sanction of pension to the petitioner from 1.7.1976.

(3.) Third respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that as per Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services Pension Rules, 1970 , the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 , as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the Municipal Employees insofar as they are not inconsistent with the 1970 Rules. Rule 2 of Chapter-I of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, also states that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules shall apply to the Government Servants appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent, but shall not apply to persons paid on daily rated basis and to persons paid with contingency. Petitioner having worked temporarily during her entire service in Dindigul Municipality and her wages having been paid under the contingent establishments, she is not eligible to get pension. The third respondent also sent a letter to the 4th respondent on 19.4.2004 and stated that no records were sent by the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality to prove that the petitioner worked in time scale of pay at the time of her retirement and as per Rule 2 and 43(2) of the Pension Rules, 1978, pension can be sanctioned only to those who retire in a pensionable post or in time scale of pay with minimum qualifying service of ten years. Since the petitioner has not satisfied with the above conditions, petitioner is not entitled to get sanction of pension.