{"id":56296,"date":"2007-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-10T20:41:52","modified_gmt":"2019-03-10T15:11:52","slug":"alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 19\/12\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n\n\nW.P(MD)No.9408 of 2007\n\n\nAlagammal\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu,\nrep.by the Secretary to Government,\nMunicipal Administration and\nWater Supply Department,\nSecretariat,\nChennai - 9.\n\n2.Commissioner of Municipalities,\nEzhilagam,\nChennai.\n\n3.Director of Local Fund Audit,\nKuralagam,\nChennai - 108.\n\n4.The Commissioner,\nDindigul Municipality,\nDindigul.\t\t\t...\t\tRespondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue\na Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the\norder passed by the 3rd respondent in Government Letter\nNo.Mu.Mu.No.11987\/Na.O.Sa(1)05, dated 19.4.2005 and quash the same and direct\nthe respondents to sanction regular pensionary benefits to the petitioner in\nterms of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.186 Municipal Administration and Water Supply\nDepartment dated 27.9.1995 from 1976 with interest.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\tMr.N.Sudalai Muthu\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMrs.V.Chellammal,\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tPrayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the 3rd
\nrespondent in Government Letter No.Mu.Mu.No.11987\/Na.O.Sa(1)05, dated 19.4.2005
\nand direct the respondents to sanction regular pensionary benefits to the
\npetitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.186 Municipal Administration and Water Supply
\nDepartment, dated 27.9.1995 from 1976 with interest.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Sanitary
\nWorker in the 4th respondent Municipality from June, 1950 to 30th June, 1976.
\nOn 30.6.1973, though she was ordered to retire, again she was permitted to work
\ntill 30.6.1976 on production of medical certificate.  Petitioner has put in 26
\nyears of continuous service.  She applied for pensionary benefits and the same
\nwas rejected on the ground that the petitioner retired only as a contingent
\nstaff and therefore she is not eligible to get pensionary benefits.  When
\npetitioner submitted representations, 4th respondent on 29.12.2004 forwarded the
\nsame to the second respondent.  The third respondent sent a reply stating that
\nthe petitioner had not completed ten years of service from the date of
\nregularisation and so she was not eligible for pensionary benefits.  According
\nto the petitioner, the Sanitary Workers were regularised by G.O.Ms.No.2469
\nHealth and Family Planning Department, dated 1.10.1973 and as per G.O.Ms.No.270
\nMunicipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.3.1990, adhoc
\npension was ordered to be sanctioned to the persons who retired before 14.1.1990
\non par with those who retired after 14.1.1970.  When the petitioner applied to
\nthe 4th respondent to intimate the reason for non-sanction of pension under the
\nRight to Information Act, the 4th respondent replied that the petitioner worked
\nas contingent staff from 1950 to June, 1976 and records were not maintained.
\nHence the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order and
\nfor sanction of pension to the petitioner from 1.7.1976.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThird respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that
\nas per Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services Pension Rules, 1970, the
\nprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as amended from time to time
\nshall mutatis mutandis apply to the Municipal Employees insofar as they are not
\ninconsistent with the 1970 Rules.  Rule 2 of Chapter-I of the Tamil Nadu Pension
\nRules, 1978, also states that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules shall apply to the
\nGovernment Servants appointed to services and posts in connection with the
\naffairs of the State, which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether
\ntemporary or permanent, but shall not apply to persons paid on daily rated basis
\nand to persons paid with contingency.  Petitioner having worked temporarily
\nduring her entire service in Dindigul Municipality and her wages having been
\npaid under the contingent establishments, she is not eligible to get pension.
\nThe third respondent also sent a letter to the 4th respondent on 19.4.2004 and
\nstated that no records were sent by the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality to
\nprove that the petitioner worked in time scale of pay at the time of her
\nretirement and as per Rule 2 and 43(2) of the  Pension Rules, 1978, pension can
\nbe sanctioned only to those who retire in a pensionable post or in time scale of
\npay with minimum qualifying service of ten years.  Since the petitioner has not
\nsatisfied with the above conditions, petitioner is not entitled to get sanction
\nof pension.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the typed set
\nfiled in support of the writ petition, contended that the petitioner was retired
\nfrom service by the order of the Welfare Officer of the Dindigul Municipality
\ndated 30.6.1976 along with 24 others and in that order it was stated that for
\nfilling up the said posts, separate orders will be passed.  Petitioner submitted
\nrepresentations to the respondents on 5.7.1976, 26.12.1976, 15.4.1977, 3.2.1978,
\n2.12.1982 and requested for sanction of pension and other benefits.  The learned
\ncounsel also submitted that the husband of the petitioner viz., Kuttaiyan, who
\nwas also a Sanitary Worker of Dindigul Municipality, retired from service on
\n30.6.1976, and he had given the service particulars of himself and the
\npetitioner stating that the date of appointment as June, 1950; date of
\nretirement as 30.6.1976; scale of pay as Rs.30-3-130-4-150-5-165; last drawn
\nsalary as Rs.127\/-;  the minimum pension eligible from 23.6.1988 as Rs.375\/- per
\nmonth; the total service as 23 years and four months; regular service 2 years, 7
\nmonths and 14 days; half of the contingent service as 11 years and 7 months; and
\nthe qualifying pensionable service as 14 years, 2 months and 14 days.  The
\nqualifying service of gratuity is stated as 28. years and the gratuity eligible
\nas per the scale fixed prior to 1978 was shown as Rs.1,333.50
\n(28x(127+63.50)190.50\/4).  It is further stated therein that the amount already
\nreceived was Rs.190.50 and the balance amount to be paid to the petitioner and
\nher husband was shown as Rs.1,143\/- each.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tThe learned counsel also pointed out that the above said details
\nwere submitted to the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell with a request to sanction
\npension and gratuity and the Minister for Local Administration on 6.4.1995
\nforwarded the same to the Director of Municipal Administration for necessary and
\nimmediate action as per the endorsement made in the copy of the representation
\nsubmitted to the Chief Minister’s Cell. However, no action was taken by the
\nDirector of Municipal Administration based on the details furnished by the
\nPetitioner and her husband.  Petitioner’s husband died on 5.4.1998 without
\nreceiving the pension and after his demise, petitioner submitted representation
\nto the Commissioner of Dindigul Municipality to sanction her pension and also
\narrears of pension of her husband from 1.7.1976 and family pension from
\n5.4.1998.  Copy of the same was also submitted to the Director of Municipal
\nAdministration, Chennai.  The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality through his
\nmemo dated 2.12.2004 stated that the petitioner and her husband retired on
\n30.6.1976 and after expiry of 28 years, no records are available and therefore
\nrequested the petitioner to submit the proof for their service details.
\nPetitioner again submitted the details on 19.1.2005. However, the Commissioner,
\nDindigul Municipality addressed a letter to the third respondent on 12.2.2005 by
\nstating that the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1976 and the Welfare
\nOfficer has issued an order in his proceeding dated 19.3.1976 and also certified
\nthat the petitioner served in the Municipality as Sanitary Worker for more than
\none year and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
\n30.6.1976 and recommended for sanction of adhoc pension in terms of
\nG.O.Ms.No.270 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated
\n16.3.1990.  The third respondent sent a reply to the 4th respondent by stating
\nthat adhoc pension can be sanctioned to persons who retired prior to 14.1.1970
\nand the petitioner having been paid regular time scale of pay from 1.10.1973,
\nshe cannot be paid the adhoc pension and for payment of regular pension
\npetitioner is not having ten years of regular service.  Even after the said
\norder, petitioner submitted representation on 25.4.2005 to the third respondent
\nand on 18.11.2005 the Government sent a letter to the petitioner stating that
\nthe petitioner should approach the Municipal Administration and Water Supply
\nDepartment for sanction of pension.  Petitioner again sent a representation to
\nthe Commissioner, Municipal Administration on 27.2.2006 and till date petitioner
\nhas not been sanctioned the pension or the arrears of pension to petitioner’s
\nhusband and also family pension payable to the petitioner on the death of
\npetitioner’s husband.  As the petitioner is now aged 89 years, who retired in
\nthe year 1976,  the learned counsel submitted that based on the materials
\nfurnished by the petitioner as stated supra, respondents may be directed to
\nsanction pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner and also arrears of
\npension and gratuity payable to the petitioner till the date of death of her
\nhusband and family pension after his demise.  The learned counsel also cited a
\ndecision of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 320 (O.A.Chinna Alagi v. State
\nof Tamil Nadu)<\/a> in support of his contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tThe learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
\non the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit submitted that
\nthe petitioner was appointed only as contingent staff and her services were not
\nregularised and even assuming that from 1973 her services were regularised,
\npetitioner was not having ten years of completed pensionable service and
\ntherefore petitioner is not entitled to get pension and similar is the case
\ninsofar as the petitioner’s husband is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tI have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner as well as respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tThe facts in this case are that the petitioner and her husband were
\nappointed as Sanitary Worker in the 4th respondent Municipality as contingent
\nstaff in the year 1950 and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2469 Health and
\nFamily Planning Department, dated 1.10.1973 and issued guidelines for appointing
\nsanitary workers in the local bodies and in clause 4 of the said Government
\nOrder it is stated that Sanitary Workers be granted scale of pay of Rs.100-3-
\n130-4-150-5-165 and they are, in addition to the said pay, eligible to get DA of
\nRs.35 besides HRA and other benefits and that they are also entitled to continue
\nupto 60 years of age, provided they are medically fit.  In the letter of the
\nthird respondent addressed to the 4th respondent dated 19.4.2005, it is stated
\nthat the Sanitary Worker posts, which the petitioner and her husband were
\nholding were given regular time scale of pay  from 1.6.1973 and they were
\nbrought in the pensionable service as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
\nTherefore, there is no controversy with regard to their regularisation of
\nservice from 1.6.1973 and their continuance as regularised Sanitary Workers till
\n30.6.1976 with time scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tThe only objection as could be seen from the order is that the
\npetitioner and her husband were not having ten years of qualifying pensionable
\nservice.  Admittedly the petitioner and her husband served as contingent staff
\nfrom June, 1950 till 31.5.1973 as full time employee of the 4th respondent and
\nbrought to regular time scale of pay from 1.6.1973, without any break in service
\nand thus, the petitioner and her husband were having 23 years of contingent
\nservice and 3 years and 4 months of regular service.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tThe Government took a policy decision through G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance
\n(Pension) Department dated 14.2.1996 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order reads
\nas under,
\n\t“2.\tThe Government have examined the question of extending the
\nconcession ordered in the G.O. First read above to the case of Government
\nemployees who were borne on non-pensionable establishment and subsequently
\nbrought into pensionable establishment and have decided to count half of the
\nservice rendered under non-pensionable establishment along with service under
\npensionable establishment for pensionary benefits.  They accordingly direct that
\nhalf of the service rendered by State Government employees under non-pensionable
\nestablishment shall be allowed to be counted for pensionary benefits along with
\nregular service under pensionable establishment subject to the following
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tService under non-pensionable
\n\testablishment should have been in a
\n\tjob involving whole time\temployment.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe service under non pensionable
\n\testablishment should have been on
\n\ttime scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
Iii)\tThe service under non-pensionable
\n\testablishment should have been
\n\tcontinuous and\tfollowed by absorption
\n\tin pensionable\testablishment without a
\n\tbreak.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThese orders shall take effect from the date of this G.O.  In
\nrespect of those who retired prior to the date of this order eligible pension or
\nrevised pension, as the case may be, shall be paid from the date of this order
\nand that there can be no claim for arrears in any case for the period upto the
\ndate of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tSimilar issue as to whether the contingent service can be counted
\nfor pensionable service was considered by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nin O.A.NO.3282 of 1999 and by order dated 20.12.2001, the Tamil Nadu
\nAdministrative Tribunal considered the relevant Government Orders and directed
\nto count 50% of the said contingent services as pensionable service on the
\nground that the contingent service was on full time basis, monthly salary was
\npaid and without any break in service and the contingent staff were brought into
\nregular time scale.  The State Government challenged the said order of the
\nTribunal in W.P.No.1892 of 2003 (State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Alagar and
\nothers) and a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 23.1.2003, upheld
\nthe order of the Tribunal by observing as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“2.\tThey were all Causual Labourers under the control of the Deputy
\nDirector of Animal Husbandry, Sheep Farm, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.  They
\nwere appointed in 1970s and 1980s and were continuously in service since then.
\nThey were paid daily wages out of the contingent fund.  Their services were
\nsubsequently regularised.  These persons retired between 1999 and 2000.
\nHowever, they were refused the pension.  The Tribunal took the view that since
\nthey were in continuous service, they would be liable to be given their pension
\non the basis of the calculations made, i.e., half of their non-pensionable
\nservice shall be counted along with their pensionable service for the purpose of
\nenabling them to get pension.  The Tribunal has directed the authorities to go
\ninto the calculations and then grant the pension.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tWe do not find anything wrong with this approach.  After all, if the
\ncasual workers have put in service of 20 or 30 years as the case may be, they
\nare bound to receive the pension as per the available rules.  The writ petition
\nhas no merits.  It is dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tIn this case, if 50% of the contingent services are counted as
\npensionable service, the petitioner and her husband will have more than 14
\nyears, 2 months and 14 days of pensionable service and the same could be seen
\nfrom the details furnished by the petitioner’s husband to the Chief Minister’s
\nSpecial Cell, which was forwarded to the Director of Municipal Administration
\nfor immediate action by the Minister of the Local Administration as early as on
\n6.4.1995.  Hence the petitioner and her husband are entitled to get sanction of
\npension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and also gratuity.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tRule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, clearly states that a
\nGovernment Servant retiring on or after the 1st October, 1969, with temporary or
\nofficiating service in a pensionable post, whether rendered in a regular
\ncapacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service  even it is not
\nfollowed by confirmation.  As per Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978,
\nif a Government Servant is dismissed or removed from service, then his past
\nservice will be forfeited.  Thus, under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, it
\nis clear that even if a Government servant was appointed temporarily and was
\nholding the post for more than ten years in a pensionable establishment, pension
\nis bound to be sanctioned, provided he retired after 1.10.1969.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tThe Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1995) 6 SCC 227 =
\n1996 (1) LLJ 241 (A.P. Srivastava v. Union of India)<\/a>  considered the eligibility
\nto get pension by a temporary Government Servant, who retired on reaching
\nsuperannuation.  In paragraphs 5 and 6, the Supreme Court held as follows,
\n\t“5. In view of the rival submissions at the bar, the question for
\nconsideration is whether there is any rationale behind the rule disentitling
\npension to a government servant when an order of compulsory retirement is passed
\nin exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules? As has been
\nnoticed earlier after completion of a particular period of service the employer
\nhas a right to compulsorily retire the employee in public interest and similarly
\nthe employee has a right to voluntarily retire on giving three months’ notice.
\nIt has been held by this Court time and again that the pension is not a charity
\nor bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of
\nthe employer. It is earned for rendering a long service and is often described
\nas deferred portion of payment for past services. It is in fact in the nature of
\nsocial security plan provided for a superannuated government servant. If a
\ntemporary government servant who has rendered 20 years of service, is entitled
\nto pension, if he voluntarily retires, there is no justification for denying the
\nright to him when he is required to retire by the employer in the public
\ninterest. In other words, the condition precedent for being entitled to pension
\nin case of a temporary government servant is rendering of 20 years of service.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In view of the legal position that an order of compulsory retirement is
\nnot a punishment and pension is a right of the employee for services rendered,
\nwe see no justification for denying such right to a temporary government servant
\nmerely on the ground that he was required to retire by the employer in exercise
\nof power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. In our considered opinion a
\ntemporary government servant would be entitled to pension after he has completed
\nmore than 20 years of service even if he is required to retire by the employer
\nin exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tThe sanction of pension to a retired Government Servant is not a
\ncharity and it is given as the reward for the past services rendered, as held by
\nthe Honourable Supreme Court in the following decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\t(1983) 1 SCC 305 (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 305,
\n(para 19 and 20).\n<\/p>\n
\t“19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public
\ninterest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some
\npublic purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and
\npost a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as
\nto render just justice between parties to this petition.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment
\ndepending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right
\nand, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept
\nunder the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad
\nv. State of Bihar<\/a> (1971) 2 SCC 330 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that
\npension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of
\nthe Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming
\nwithin those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the
\ngrant of pension does not depend upon anyone’s discretion. It is only for the
\npurpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied
\nmatters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to th at
\neffect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any
\nsuch order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of
\nPunjab v. Iqbal Singh,<\/a>(1976) 2 SCC 1.”\n<\/p>\n
In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decisions reported
\nin (1971) 2 SCC 330 (Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar) and<\/a> (1976) 2 SCC 1
\n(State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\t1992 Supp (1) SCC 664 (All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn.
\nv. Union of India)<\/a> (para 5)
\n\t“5. The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by
\nthis Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous
\npayment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned
\nfor rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of
\ncompensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security
\nplan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such
\nsocial security plans are consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the
\nConstitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of
\nthe Constitution. All the Bank employees who had retired prior to November 1,
\n1990 were governed by the CPF scheme. However, by the introduction of the
\npension scheme under the Regulations those employees who retired on or after
\nJanuary 1, 1986 have been given an option to switch over to the pension scheme
\nprovided they refund the employer’s contribution to the CPF scheme together with
\ninterest thereon and further agree to pay interest at six per cent per annum
\nfrom the date of receipt of the fund amount on superannuation till the repayment
\nthereof. The grievance of the petitioners is that all employees who were
\ngoverned by the CPF scheme on the date of their superannuation constituted a
\nhomogeneous class and the pension scheme introduced under the Regulations seeks
\nto divide them between those who retired on or before December 31, 1985 and
\nthose who retired on and after January 1, 1986; to the latter the benefit of the
\npension scheme is extended by option while to the former that benefit is denied
\naltogether. This artificial division between members belonging to the same
\ngroup, contend the petitioners, is a flagrant violation of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution as held in Nakara case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tState of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan,<\/a> (1997) 4 SCC 569 = JT 1997
\n(5) SC 26, (para 8)
\n\t“8. Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined
\non the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is
\ndeterminative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The formula adopted for
\ndetermining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of
\npension. In D.S. Nakara case  the change in the formula of determining average
\nemoluments by reducing 36 months’ service to 10 months’ service as measure of
\npension, made with a view to giving a higher average, was regarded as
\nliberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On the basis
\nof the same reasoning it may be said that any modification with respect to the
\nother determinative factor, namely, qualifying service made with a view to make
\nit more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regarded a s
\nliberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. If, however,
\nthe change is not confined to the period of service but extends or relates to a
\nperiod anterior to the joining of service then it would assume a different
\ncharacter. Then it is not liberalisation of the existing scheme but introduction
\nof a new retiral benefit. What has been done by amending Rule 16 is to make the
\nperiod of practice at the Bar, which was otherwise irrelevant for determining
\nthe qualifying service, also relevant for that purpose. It is a new concept and
\na new retiral benefit. The object of the amendment does not appear to be to go
\nfor liberalisation. The purpose for which it appears to have been made is to
\nmake it more attractive for those who are already in service so that they may
\nnot leave it and for new entrants so that they may be tempted to join it. Though
\nRule 16 does not specifically state that the amended rule will apply only to
\nthose who retired after 22-2-1990, the intention behind it clearly appears to be
\nto extend the new benefit to those only who retired after that date. For these
\nreasons the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara case that if pensioners form a
\nclass computation of their pension cannot be by different formula affording
\nunequal treatment merely on the ground that some retired earlier and some
\nretired later, will have no application to a case of this type. Therefore, on
\nboth the grounds the High Court was in error in applying the ratio of the
\ndecision in D.S.Nakara case to this case. As rightly contended on behalf of the
\nState, benefit of the amendment would be available to only those direct recruits
\nwho retired after it has come into force.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tIn the Division Bench decision reported in 2007 (2) LLN 169 (C.
\nDamodarasamy v. Government of India),<\/a> while speaking for the Bench, I had an
\noccasion to deal with similar issue, wherein the Division Bench followed the
\nabove cited decisions and ordered to pay pension to one LIC officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tIn the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
\nreported in 2006 (5) CTC 320 (cited supra), the learned Judge took note of the
\n21 years of contingent services without break and found that the failure on the
\npart of the department in not taking steps to regularise the services of the
\ncontingent staff cannot be put against the said staff and on that account
\npensionary benefits cannot be denied.  I have also considered the issue as to
\nwhether non-regularisation of service of the Government Servants, who worked for
\nmore than 30 years can be sanctioned pension, in  W.P.Nos.15258 and 15468 of
\n2006 and by order dated 18.7.2007 I have held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“…  having regard to the fact that the petitioners are having more than 30
\nyears of service and they are allowed to retire on attaining the age of
\nsuperannuation, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get
\nsanction of pension from the date of retirement and a direction is issued to the
\nrespondents to sanction pension.  The arrears of pension payable to the
\npetitioners from the date of retirement shall be calculated and paid to the
\npetitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
\nThe above said judgments also support the case of the petitioner herein, even
\nthough there is a slight distinction in this case as admittedly the petitioner
\nand her husband were brought to regular service from 1.6.1973.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
\npetitioner is also entitled to receive the arrears of pension and gratuity
\npayable to the petitioner’s husband from 1.7.1976 till his death on 5.4.1998 and
\nfrom 6.4.1998, petitioner is entitled to receive family pension due to the death
\nof her husband, or atleast from 14.2.1996, the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.118
\nFinance (Pension) Department, dated 14.2.1996.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tPetitioner’s husband’s services were also regularised from 1.6.1973
\nand he retired on the same date i.e., on 30.6.1976, he was also having 14 years,
\n2 months and 14 days of pensionable service as calculated in the case of the
\npetitioner.  Hence the petitioner is also entitled to get sanction of arrears of
\npension and gratuity of her husband from 14.2.1996 till his demise on 5.4.1998.
\nPetitioner being widow, she is entitled to get family pension, apart from her
\nservice pension payable from 14.2.1996 as per G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance (Pension)
\nDepartment, dated 14.2.1996.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tIt is unfortunate that the petitioner at the age of 89 years and
\nhaving retired as early as on 30.6.1976, is forced to come to this Court for
\ngetting her service pension and family pension.  Had the respondents applied
\ntheir mind, pension could have been paid to the petitioner and her husband from
\n14.2.1996 itself.  The attitude adopted by the respondents show how the
\nrespondents have avoided from taking decision in a just and proper manner.  When
\nthe Government passes an order taking into consideration the realities of the
\nground  situations, the Officers of the Government are expected to strictly act
\non the basis of the decisions of the Government, without narrowly interpreting
\nthe Rules by avoiding dogmatic and wooden approach.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tIn the result, the writ petition is ordered with the following
\ndirections:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tThe third respondent is directed to calculate the arrears of pension
\npayable to the petitioner from 14.2.1996 and gratuity and pay the same to the
\npetitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tThe third respondent is further directed to sanction and pay the
\narrears of pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner’s husband from
\n14.2.1996 to 5.4.1998 and family pension from 6.4.1998 to the petitioner, within
\na period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Secretary to Government,
\n\tMunicipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
\n\tSecretariat, Chennai – 9.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Commissioner of Municipalities,
\n\tEzhilagam, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Director of Local Fund Audit,
\n\tKuralagam, Chennai – 108.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/12\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.9408 of 2007 Alagammal … Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007"},"wordCount":4609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007","name":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-10T15:11:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}