C LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,784 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,294 of 2007, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Order No:PAM/V/C6-238/ADK/99-2000/396, dated 7.7.2000, in rejecting the claim made by the applicant for grant of family pension and quash the proceedings therein, as illegal, incompetent, irregular and unconstitutional and to direct the payment of family pension to the applicant herein together with interest at 24% from the date of death of late Shri.C.Chandrakasi till the date of payment.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner's husband, late Mr. Chandrakasi was working in the office of the second respondent. He was employed in the Government Service Centre for Ceramics, Virudachalam, a Government Department, formed in the year, 1969. While so, a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No,463, Industries, dated 19.3.1973, had been issued by the first respondent forming a separate company, namely, the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. On 15.7.1974, the Service Centre of Ceramics was taken taken over by the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and Mr.Chandrakasi was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. Later, the Service Centre had been taken back by the Government, as per the directions issued, in G.O.Ms.No,53, Industries, dated 28.1.1988. On the winding up of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, the petitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi , who was on deputation, had been transferred, with continuity of service. However, in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No,720, Industries (SIA.II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, the Government had created posts for staff and workers, who were repatriated from the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and had ordered that the services of the repatriated employees would be treated as fresh appointments.

(3.) IT has been further stated that all the units of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, had been closed, with effect from 31.8.1988. Only the assets of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited had been taken over by the Government. In the said Government Order issued, in respect of the said taking over, it was clearly stated that appointments of the employees would be treated as fresh appointments. Accordingly, the services of Mr.Chandrakasi, had been regularised in the post of Semi-skilled worker only from 1.4.1988, similar to the services of 33 other workers. While so, Mr.Chandrakasi had expired, on 4.2.1990. However, during the period from 1.4.1988 to 4.2.1990, he had availed extraordinary leave, on a number occasions and therefore, he had not satisfied the conditions required for the payment of family pension, since he was not in continuous service for a minimum period of one year of uninterrupted service, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. As such, the claim of the petitioner, for the payment of family pension, is devoid of merits.