BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01/04/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.3328 of 2008
V.Kasi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Office of the Accountant
General (A & E)
Chennai - 18.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development
(UDII-1) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director of Town and
Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating t the pension payment order dated 08.03.2007 under PPO.No.C304103/TCP
issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents to disburse the pension including the terminal benefits together
with pension to the petitioner treating the period from 03.07.1986 to
21.12.1994, as a period spent on duty and consequently to pay the arrears of
salary for the said period.
!For petitioner ... Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi
^For respondents ... Mr.Pala.Ramasamy for R2 and R3
Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R1
:ORDER
The petitioner was the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning,
Madurai Corporation. He applied for voluntary retirement by serving a notice
dated 03.04.1984. His request for voluntary retirement was rejected and he was
directed to join duty. But, he went on medical leave and he did not appear
before Medical Board. Therefore, charges were framed against him under Rule
17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the
Director of Town and Country Planning. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and he
was found guilty. Final orders were issued under G.O.Ms.No.151-H and UD
Department, dated 22.02.1994, imposing the punishment of removal from service.
2.The petitioner filed O.A.No.3592 of 1994 before the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, to quash the aforesaid G.O. The Tribunal modified the
punishment as compulsory retirement, by an order dated 17.11.2002 with effect
from the date of G.O.Ms.No.151 – H and UD Department viz., 22.02.1994.
3.The order of the Tribunal was complied with and the Government issued
G.O.(D) No.275, Housing & Urban Development (CD2-1) Department, dated
02.05.2006. Paragraph No.6 of the said G.O.275, is extracted here under:
“In exercise of the powers conferred under Fundamental Rule 5-A, the
Government of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes Fundamental Rule 18(2) in favour of
Thiru.V.Kasi, Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (Retd.) so as to
enable to regulate the period of unauthorised absence from 03.07.1986 to
21.02.1994 as Extra-ordinary Leave without Allowances without Medical
Certificate.”
4.While so, the 1st respondent issued the order, wherein the service
from 03.07.1986 to 21.02.1984 were taken as non qualifying service for
computation of pension, which has been put to challenge in this writ petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has brought
to my notice the Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and submits that there
is no infirmity in the order. Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is
extracted hereunder:
“Counting of periods spent on leave.- All leave during service for which
leave salary is payable and extraordinary leave on medical certificate shall
count as qualifying service:
Provided that in the case of extraordinary leave other than extraordinary
leave granted on medical certificate appointing authority may, at the time of
granting such leave, allow the period of that leave to count as qualifying
service if such leave is granted to a Government servant, –
(i) due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of Civil
Commotion; or
(ii) for prosecuting higher scientific and technical studies; (or)
(iii) for taking up employment abroad, if necessary pension contributions
are paid by the Government servant to the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu from
time to time with appropriate interest for belated payments, if any.”
6.In view of Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules,, I am of the
considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned pension order.
Admittedly, the leave salary is not paid for the period 03.07.1986 to
21.02.1994. Further, it is not an Extra-ordinary leave granted on medical
certificate.
6.Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ
petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
arul
To
1.The Office of the Accountant
General (A & E)
Chennai – 18.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development
(UDII-1) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of Town and
Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.