AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.