D.PAUL DANIEL Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these writ petitions is to the rejection of pension to the petitioners on the ground that they have not completed 10 years of service. These two cases present a classic example of exploitation of the poor by the so-called welfare State of Tamil Nadu.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1636 of 2015 was appointed as part-time Sweeper through employment exchange in the Government Middle School, Devikoddu, Kanyakumari District on a princely salary of Rs.105.00 per month on 2/12/1992. Since the services of the petitioner were not regularised, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court seeking regularisation and ultimately, after filing of contempt petitions, the Government opened its eyes and the services of the petitioner were regularised with retrospective effect from 2/12/2002 on 4/10/2012. The petitioner eventually retired from service on 30/4/2011. Though the pension proposals were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General by the Headmaster of the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Marthandam, Kanayakumari District, including 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner as part time Sweeper from 2/12/2002, the Accountant General has chosen to reject the claim on the ground that part time services cannot be taken into account under Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2015 is that she was appointed as temporary part-time Sweeper at Government V.M.V. Primary School, Potetti, Kanyakumari District on 10/12/1990 on a monthly salary of Rs.105.00. The services of the petitioner were eventually regularised with effect from 14/12/2000 by order dtd. 4/10/2012. This was also done after the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petitions. The pension proposals sent by the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Munchirai, Kanyakumari District, after retirement of the petitioner on 28/2/2009. The said proposals have been rejected by the Accountant General on the ground that 50% services of the services of the petitioner as part-time Sweeper cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating entitlement of the pension.