P. Ramachandran vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

V. Dhanapalan, J.—By consent of the learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondent to make all necessary entries in the petitioner''s service register and to re-fix his salary

as per the recommendation of the 6th pay commission and grant the enhanced annual pay, and regularise the earned leave, and award the selection

grade and grant the gratuity and pension and grant all consequent benefits to the petitioner with interest and compensation for the delay.

According to the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Junior Assistant on 19.04.1972 in the Settlement Department under the Revenue

Control of the Department. He retired from service on 30.04.2004. After his retirement, the retiral benefits have not been paid to him till date. The

reason for the non-payment of the retiral benefits was that his service register was misplaced in the Taluk Office at Yerkaud in the year 1993. In

spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, the office could trace the service register only in 2001. But, the entries were not made in the

service register for the reasons not known to the petitioner.

3a. The third respondent in his proceedings in Ni.Mu. 15909/04/Aa4 dated 30.04.2004 has permitted the petitioner to retire from service on

superannuation. Thereafter, the third respondent, by his order dated 22.12.2005 granted prorate pension from May 2004 and the petitioner is

receiving only the said amount of Rs. 1600/- till date. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the inaction of the respondents, the re-fixation of his

salary as per the recommendations of the pay commission, annual pay regularisation of Earned Leave awarding selection grade were not granted to

him. According to the petitioner, all his efforts made by means of representations have not been responded till date and he has to spend for the

illness of his son, who is suffering from brain tumour and taking treatment in NIMHANS Hospital at Bangalore. The petitioner has paid Rs.

1,50,000/- for the surgery of his son by mortgaging his only house property. The petitioner brought his plights to the notice of the 2nd and 3rd

respondents, but they have paid least concern to his sufferings.

3b. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are duty bound to follow the pension rules, which makes it mandatory by Rule 62(2)(a) that the head of office

shall go through the service book and the service roll, if any of the Government servants and satisfy himself as to whether the annual certificates of

verification for the entire service are recorded therein. But, even after knowing the monetary loss and frustration caused to the petitioner by their

inaction, the respondents have not come forward to grant his service benefits till date.

3c. The petitioner would further state that the respondents are liable to pay interest for the due amounts and compensation to the petitioner for

non-payment of retiral benefits even after five years of the date of retirement and for no fault on his part, he is facing untold hardships. The

petitioner has made representations dated 17.06.2008 and 29.09.2008 to the 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent, respectively, to grant the

Provisional DCRG interest for the arrears amount as per the pay commission and the enhanced Dearness Allowance at an early date to utilize it for

his son''s treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.10.2008 to the Special Officer, Chief Minister Grievance Cell.

Consequently, the second respondent, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 91651/2005/K3 dated 16.12.2008 informed the petitioner that the

arrears of pay commission will be given and the pension proposals will be considered after making all the entries in the service register. Finding no

action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard Ms. A. Arulmozhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. S. Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the

respondents.

The foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though the Service Register of the petitioner was traced in the year

2001 and a communication has been sent by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Salem in the year 2008, the respondents have not made entries

in the Service Register of the petitioner and the pensionary benefits were not disbursed to the petitioner as per Rules.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that as there was misplacement of the Service Register and as it was traced only in

the year 2001, the respondents may require some more time to consider the petitioner''s claim. However, he would submit that the respondents

may be directed to consider the petitioner''s claim based on the communication received from the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Salem, on

16.12.2008.

In this case, it is seen that the petitioner entered into the service of the Settlement Department on 19.04.1972 and retired from service on

30.04.2004. It appears that his service register was misplaced in the year 1993 and it was traced by the respondents only in 2001.

Despite several efforts made by the petitioner, the respondents have not given any consideration to the grievance of the petitioner and finally, on

16.12.2008, a communication has been sent to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Salem, stating that as and when entries are

made in the Service Register, his request for pensionary benefits will be considered.

Though the petitioner has expressed his untold sufferings in giving treatment to his son, who is suffering from brain tumour and taking treatment in

NIMHANS Hospital at Bangalore, after spending about Rs. 1,50,000/- for the surgery of his son by mortgaging his only house property, the

respondents have not considered his grievance. As per Rule 62(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to grant the

retirement benefits to the petitioner. But, the respondents have not done so, even though the petitioner''s Service Register was traced in the year

2001. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer sought in the writ petition can be granted to the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to make all entries in the petitioner''s Service Register and re-fix his salary as per the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and grant the enhanced annual pay and all other consequent benefits as claimed by the petitioner

within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.