ORDER
K. Suguna, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Govt. Letter No. 16231/Pearu 2/2004-3 dated 9.7.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction regular pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 29 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 10.1.1989 from 10.1.1989 with interest.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had worked as a Sanitary worker in the Olagadam Town Panchayat, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District for a period of 21 years from 16.7.1953 to 6.3.1974. Though the petitioner had served for a period of 21 years, he was not paid regular pension. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as far as the employees of local bodies namely, Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats are concerned, they are not governed by the Pension Rules. Subsequently, in the year 1974, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 1300, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 22.5.1974 introducing pension and gratuity benefits to the employees of local bodies under the Liberalised Pension Scheme. This benefit is applicable only to those who retired from service on or after 1.4.1974. As far as those who reached the age of superannuation prior to 1.4.1974, is concerned, originally, pensionary benefits were not extended to them. After a number of representations, in the year 1982, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1364 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 4.9.1982 sanctioning ad hoc pension @ Rs. 100 per month to those who retired prior to 1.4.1974. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms. No. 55, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 12.1.1983, the same was enhanced to Rs. 125/- per month. As far as sanction of ad hoc pension is concerned; the Government has issued regulations in this regard under the nomenclature “Regulation for grant of ad hoc pension to local body employees” in G.O.Ms. No. 830 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 9.6.1983. As per this Government Order, the benefit granted under this regulation is applicable to all the employees of Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats and Panchayat Townships, who retired prior to 1.4.1974. Subsequently,, in the year 1989, Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 29 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 10.1.1989 granting the benefit of regular pension and other benefits to those who retired prior to 1.4.1974 also. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he retired from service on 6.3.1974 after rendering 21 years of service, but he was not given any ad hoc pension as per the above said Government Orders. Hence, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 2384/1994 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal wherein the Tribunal had given a direction to sanctioned hoc pension and also to take steps for the grant of regular pension. Based on this, by order of the Executive Officer, Olagadam Town Panchayat, dated 22.6.1995, the petitioner was granted ad hoc pension with effect from 1.8.1982. But, he was not given regular pension. Hence, representations were made, but they were rejected and communicated to the petitioner by the order of the Government dated 26.11.1997 and 9.7.2004 wherein it is stated that, since the petitioner had retired as a contingent staff, he is not eligible for regular pension. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even as per the order dated 22.6.1995, the petitioner was sanctioned ad hoc pension on the basis of the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.1995 and in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 830 dated 9.6.1983 and also subsequent Government Orders stated in the reference to the above said order of the Executive Officer and by G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 10 1.1989 regular pension was sanctioned to those who were granted ad hoc pension. Since, the petitioner was also granted ad hoc pension by the above said order of the Executive Officer, he is also entitled for regular pension. Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the criteria for getting regular pension is, as far as employees of local bodies namely, Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats and Panchayats Townships are concerned, they should have been granted ad hoc pension as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No. 830 dated 9.6.1983 and the subsequent Government Orders issued in this regard. As such, having granted ad hoc pension, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regular pension on the ground that he was working as a contingent staff and not as a regular employee. Apart from this, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, even, as per the order of the Government dated 9.7.2004, the petitioner had served from 16.7.1953 to 6.3.1974. As such, after serving for a period of 21 years, retirement benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for Rl to R3 and the learned Counsel appearing for R4 would contend that admittedly, the petitioner was serving only as a contingent staff in the Olagadam Panchayat Union and he never worked as a regular employee. That apart, according to the learned Counsel, as per the Pension Rules, contingent staff are not eligible for regular pension and the relief sought for cannot be granted. As such, the learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I have considered the above submissions of the respective Counsel.
6. Admittedly, even as per the order of the 4th respondent also, the petitioner had served as a sanitary staff from 1953 to 1974 for a period of 21 years and basing on the orders of the Tribunal and in pursuance of the Government Orders issued with regard to ad hoc pension alone, by order dated 22.6.1985, of the Executive Officer of Olagadam Town Panchayat, the petitioner was sanctioned and paid ad hoc pension and by G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 10.1.1989, the Government has sanctioned regular pension to those who were receiving ad hoc pension. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:
2. In the meantime, the Government considered, in consultation with the Commissioner of Rural Development, Director of Town Panchayats and Examiner of Local Fund Accounts to grant all benefits to the ad hoc pensioners of the Panchayat Institutions now being granted to the regular pensioners. After careful consideration of the matter, the Government have decided to extend all benefits including Death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension, etc. now enjoyed by the regular pensioners of the Panchayat Institutions to the ad hoc pensioners.
As per this Government Order, regular pension was sanctioned toad hoc pensioners i.e., to say in other words, by G.O.Ms. 29 dated 10.1.1989, as far as Panchayat Union Staff, who had retired prior to 1.4.1974 are concerned, the eligibility criteria for receiving regular pension is that he or she should be an ad hoc pensioner. As per G.O.Ms. No. 830 dated 9.6.1983, all the employees of Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats and Panchayat Townships, who retired prior to 1.4.1974 were eligible under the said regulation for ad hoc pension. As far as this Government Order is concerned, no differentiation was made between permanent employees and contingent staff. The only condition imposed under this Government Order is he or she should have reached the age of superannuation prior to 1.4.1974. That is the reason why instead of granting pension under the pension rules, the same was granted under “Regulation for grant of ad hoc pension to local body employees, who retired prior to 1.4.1974”. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he retired prior to 1.4.1974 and since, this Government Order is applicable to all the Panchayat Union Staff, he was given the benefit of ad hoc pension also as per the orders issued in this regard by the Executive Officer. G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 10.1.1989, which provides for grant of regular pension has been issued not with reference to permanent employees, who had retired from service prior to 1.4.1974, but with reference toad hoc pensioners. So, the eligibility criteria for local body employees, who had retired prior to 1.4.1974 to get regular pension by virtue of the above said Government Order is that he or she should be an ad hoc pensioner. As far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that he is an ad hoc pensioner. As such, the petitioner is eligible for regular pension as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 10.1.1989.
7. As far as the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground that he is a contingent staff is concerned, as per G.O.Ms. No. 437, Finance (Pension) Department dated 23.6.1988, which is referred in the impugned order, service rendered as a contingent staff can be taken into account for calculating the qualifying service for grant of regular pension. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he had retired from service prior to this Government Order. But, the object of granting pension is to enable the retired Government Servant to have means of livelihood till his or her death. Admittedly, the petitioner had served, even as per the impugned order, for a period of 21 years. But, throughout, he was kept as a contingent staff. Since there was a need, without break, continuously, the petitioner was allowed to work for a period of 21 years. In spite of 21 years of service, since he was retained as a contingent staff, certainly, he could not have received the pay paid to regular employees. Having extracted work from an employee for a period of 21 years and retaining him as a contingent staff in spite of the need for his service and denying the due benefits, which he would have received otherwise, that too, in the matter of sanitary workers, who are last grade servants in the Panchayat Union is, in my opinion, unsustainable. Having failed to take any steps to bring the petitioner in the regular cadre and exploiting the workers taking advantage of their ignorance and denying even the retirement benefits on account of the mistake committed by the Department is arbitrary. As such, after extracting work from the petitioner for period of 21 years and denying the pensionary benefits to which he is eligible, as per G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 10.1.1989 is illegal. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.