V. Ramachandran vs State of Tamil Nadu

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 6.9.1996 and direct the respondents to sanction regularisation of petitioner's services in the Government Services for the purpose of pension, family pension, DCRG for the period from 15.11.1960 to 26.3.1966 and also grant other terminal benefits, as applicable to the Government servants, with interest at 12% per annum.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, after passing diploma in Mechanical Engineering, was temporarily appointed as Mechanical Supervisor in the Highways and Rural Works Department on 15.1 1.1960. According to the petitioner, the above post is a pensionable post in Government Service and therefore he is also entitled to get pension, family pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, after his retirement.

Petitioner worked in the said post till 26.3.1966 and whileso he applied for the post of Inspector of Industries under the control of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai-5. Petitioner's application was forwarded to the Director of Industries and Commerce and he was directed to appear for an interview for the post of Inspector of Industries in the Department of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai-5. Petitioner appeared for the interview and he was selected to the post and an order of appointment was issued on 21.2.1966 by the Madras State Small Industries Corporation Limited, Madras-5 (now renamed as TANSI). The TANSI, while referring to the letter of the Director of Industries and Commerce had appointed the petitioner as Foreman (Engg) Grade-I in the Wood Working Unit, Pollachi, and directed the petitioner to report for duty before the Works Officer forthwith on or before 5.3.1966. Petitioner resigned his post as Mechanical Supervisor for taking up the appointment in TANSI and he was relieved on 26.3.1966. Accordingly petitioner joined TANSI as Foreman (Engg) Grade-I on 30.3.1966.

According to the petitioner, under Rule 41 read with 23 of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, the resignation of the petitioner shall not entail forfeiture of past services, if the candidate submitted application with proper permission for another appointment, whether temporary or permanent under the Government. Therefore, petitioner's service in the Highways and Rural Works Department are recognised by TANSI and that has been taken into account in the service register maintained by the TANSI.

Petitioner retired from 30.6.1996 and submitted a representation on 15.6.1996 and on 10.12.1996 to the first respondent through the Director of Industries and Commerce for regularisation of his services as Inspector of Industries in the Department of Industries and Commerce and for granting gratuity and all other benefits as applicable to the Government Servants, for the services rendered by him. Petitioner also represented to the TANSI and the TANSI in its letter dated 13.1.1997 reported that it has nothing to do with the non regularisation of the petitioner's service and his representation with enclosures was directed to be forwarded to the Director of Industries and Commerce. On the report submitted to the Government, the impugned order is passed stating that after a lapse of 30 years petitioner's request cannot be complied with. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined in the services of the Government only on the belief that he would get pension and family pension after his retirement. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner applied for the post of Inspector of Industries and he was selected and appointed and therefore petitioner was placed only on deputation to TANSI by the Director of Industries and Commerce and he also joined in the said post as his services are protected under Rule 9 and General Rule 23(g). It is further submitted that the petitioner had not given his option for absorption in TANSI when such option was called for in G.O.Ms. No. 731 Industries Department dated 21.5.1974. It is contended that petitioner having not exercised his option, TANSI should have terminated the deputation of the petitioner. Learned counsel pointed out that in AnnexureB to G.o.Ms. No. 575 Industries Department, dated 4.5.1976, petitioner'' s name is shown as a person who failed to exercise option.

Learned Government Advocate relied on the following statement in the counter affidavit, ... It is also submitted that the applicant has falsely stated that he has been deputed to TANSI and claimed that he is entitled for automatic declaration of probation as per General Rule 23(g). It is submitted that the General Rules 23(g) enables a member of a service to count his deputation period towards his probation period. In the case of the petitioner it has already been stated that he has neither been appointed as Inspector of Industries nor he has been sent on deputation to TANSI. Therefore, automatic declaration of probation in the post of Inspector of Industries invoking General Rule 23 (g) will not arise.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said statement submitted that in Annexure-B to G.O.Ms. No. 575 Industries Department dated 4.5.1976, titled as "Personnel who at present working in TANSI and failed to exercise option to Department or TANSI (sic) Category III Officers", under the caption "Production Assistant", the name of the petitioner is found in Sl. No. 2. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit is without reference to the Government order and petitioner's claim is bound to be considered.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate.

The impugned order nowhere states the specific reason except stating that after the lapse of 30 years, petitioner's request cannot be complied

with. Petitioner having retired on 30.6.1996, payment of pension and other benefits will arise only from the date of his retirement. Therefore, for getting pensionary benefits, retirement benefits and other terminal benefits, petitioner submitted representation on 15.6.1996, which is bound to be considered without reference to the date of submission of the representation. In my considered opinion, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the representation to the first respondent, immediately before his retirement.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 6.9.1996 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner taking note of the contents in G.O. Ms. No. 575 dated 4.5.1976 and taking note of the regularisation given to the other persons, whose names are found in Annexure-B to the G.O. Ms. No. 575 dated 4.5.1976. The revised order shall be passed by the first respondent in accordance with the above directions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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