IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.27044 of 2010 E.Jebamani .. Petitioner Vs. Government of Tamilnadu, rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondent This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records leading to the issue of the impugned order G.O.No.(2D)126/Home/POL VI Department, dated 09.03.2009 of the respondent, quash the sane as illegal and void and consequently to direct the respondent to sanction pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the rules if necessary by granting relaxation for the services rendered by the petitioner in State Service from 10.01.1975 to 20.06.1991 with arrears of pension and allowances, etc. For Petitioner : .Mr.V.Parthiban for M/s.Paul & Paul For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali, GA - - - - ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the respondent Government in G.O.(2D)No.126, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 9.3.2009 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to sanction pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules by granting relaxation for the services rendered by the petitioner in the State service from 10.01.1975 to 20.06.1991 with arrears of pension and other allowances.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was recruited as Grade II Police Constable and joined service on 10.01.1975 in Tirunelveli District. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 05.01.1983. During the year 1990, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Security Officer in the Directorate of Estate Management, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai. The petitioner was selected for the said post. He had resigned his post in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and was relieved accordingly on 20.06.1991. Thereafter, he took up the assignment as Assistant Security Officer in the Department of Atomic Energy on 01.07.1991. When he was working as Assistant Security Officer at the Department of Atomic Energy, he was given a show cause notice, dated 24.5.1993 asking him to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he had suppressed certain information. He had given a reply. But, however, not satisfied with his reply, the petitioner’s services came to be terminated with effect from 11.11.1993 by invoking Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules.
3.The petitioner had filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench being O.A.No.919 of 1995. The Tribunal by an order, dated 13.8.1999 had dismissed the O.A. But, while dismissing the O.A., it gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government for being restored to the police department. The petitioner made a representation. When his representation was not considered, he had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.21236 of 2003. That writ petition was dismissed, but once again liberty was given to move the authority for the grant of pension. The petitioner thereafter had reached the actual age of superannuation on 31.07.2008. Since no action was taken on his representation, he had filed an another writ petition being W.P.No.8594 of 2008. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9.4.2008 permitting him to send a fresh representation and on such receipt of fresh representation, the same was directed to be considered. The petitioner accordingly had sent a representation, dated 15.5.2008.
4.Thereafter, the State Government by G.O.(2D)No.126, Home (Pol.VI) Department, dated 09.03.2009 had rejected his case. In that order, the State Government had referred to the proviso to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and had stated that it can be made applicable for him to get pension from the Central Government by taking his earlier services and treating it as a technical resignation. But since he had resigned his earlier post in the State, his entire services were forfeited by virtue of Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Therefore, his request to grant pension by treating it as a retirement on 31.7.2008 under FR 56 does not arise. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5.It is not clear as to how the petitioner has any right to claim pension when he had resigned and taken up employment with the Central Government and on being terminated, seeks for grant of pension when there is no specific rule enabling him to get such pension. The petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of pension and that any direction if issued will be contrary to the statutory pension rules. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
vvk
To
The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Home,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 9