S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the writ petitions, petitioners seek to quash the Government letter dated 22.8.1994 insofar as it relates to the petitioners and further direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in the cadre of Office Assistant with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are that originally the petitioner in W.P.No.15258 of 2006 was appointed as office assistant on 22.7.1957 and posted at Veerakeralampudur and the petitioner in W.P.No.15468 of 2006 was appointed as Peon on 3.11.1954 and subsequently he was appointed in the cadre of Office Assistant on temporary basis. THE petitioners submitted various representations for regularisation of their services in the cadre of Office Assistant and the said claim was finally rejected by the impugned order dated 22.8.1994 stating that the petitioner in W.P.No.15258 of 2006 do not possess the required qualification and that the petitioner in W.P.No.15468 of 2006 has attained the age of superannuation and therefore their services cannot be regularised. THE said order is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that unless regularisation is ordered, the petitioners will not be in a position to get retirement benefits, which are given to the permanent employees such as pension, gratuity, etc. According to the petitioners, they were in service for more than 30 years and therefore even if the services are not regularised on any ground, they are entitled to get pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, considering their services for more than 30 years of service.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the petitioners are eligible to get pension under the Pension Rules, their claim will be considered and there is no difficulty in sanctioning pension even though their services are not regularised.