CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 17-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.294 of 2007(O.A.No.784 of 2001)Smt.C.Lakshmi ..PetitionerVersus1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlement) Tamil Nadu, Chennai2.The Deputy Director, (Ceramics), Government Service Centre, for Ceramics, Virudachalam.3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Fort St. Goerge, Madras-600 009. ..RespondentsPrayer: Original Application No.784 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.294 of 2007, seekingfor a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on thefile of the 1st respondent in Order No:PAM/V/C6-238/ADK/99-2000/396,dated 7.7.2000, in rejecting the claim made by the applicant forgrant of family pension and quash the proceedings therein, asillegal, incompetent, irregular and unconstitutional and to directthe payment of family pension to the applicant herein together withinterest at 24% from the date of death of late Shri.C.Chandrakasitill the date of payment. For Petitioner : Mr.V.RaghavachariFor Respondents : Mr.S.Anitha Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner's husband, late Mr.Chandrakasi was working in theoffice of the second respondent. He was employed in the GovernmentService Centre for Ceramics, Virudachalam, a Government Department,formed in the year, 1969. While so, a Government Order, inG.O.Ms.No.463, Industries, dated 19.3.1973, had been issued by thefirst respondent forming a separate company, namely, the Tamil NaduCeramics Limited. On 15.7.1974, the Service Centre of Ceramics wastaken taken over by the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited andMr.Chandrakasi was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu CeramicsLimited. Later, the Service Centre had been taken back by theGovernment, as per the directions issued, in G.O.Ms.No.53,Industries, dated 28.1.1988. On the winding up of the Tamil NaduCeramics Limited, the petitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi , who wason deputation, had been transferred, with continuity of service.However, in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.720, Industries(SIA.II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, the Government had createdposts for staff and workers, who were repatriated from the Tamil NaduCeramics Limited and had ordered that the services of the repatriatedemployees would be treated as fresh appointments. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner's husbandMr.Chandrakasi, had died on 4.2.1990, and therefore, the petitionerhad sent a letter, on 4.2.1990, to the respondent, for receiving thefamily pension of her deceased husband. However, a letter had beensent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner would be entitledfor the family pension, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil NaduPension Rules, only if the Government servant had completed not lessthan one year of continuous service. Since the petitioner's husband,Mr.Chandrakasi, had not completed one year of continuous service, thepetitioner was not entitled to receive the family pension. Thepetitioner has stated that the stand taken by the respondents thatthe petitioner was not entitled for the family pension, is arbitrary,erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. In such circumstances,the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2and 3, it has been stated that Mr.Chandrakasi, the husband of thepetitioner, was a semi-skilled worker, appointed as perG.O.Ms.No.720, Industries (SIA-II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, witheffect from 1.4.1988, making it clear that his service would only betaken as fresh service. The Service Centre for Ceramics,Virudachalam, was transferred to Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, from15.7.1974. Before the transfer, some workers were working in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Service centre, as daily rated casual workers, oncontingent bills (not on regular establishment). On transfer to theTamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, the workers were also taken by TamilNadu Ceramics Limited. They were only contingent staff, paid ascontingent bills and they were absorbed in Tamil Nadu CeramicsLimited and covered by the Factories Act, 1948. As soon as they hadjoined the service of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, two wageagreements were settled between the management of the Tamil NaduCeramics Limited and their workers, including the petitioner. His payand allowances were paid according to the wage agreements. While hewas serving in Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, he was made a member ofEmployees Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees Provident Fundsubscriptions were recovered from him, besides the contributions madeby the management, for the said fund. 5. It has been further stated that all the units of the TamilNadu Ceramics Limited, had been closed, with effect from 31.8.1988.Only the assets of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited had been takenover by the Government. In the said Government Order issued, inrespect of the said taking over, it was clearly stated thatappointments of the employees would be treated as fresh appointments.Accordingly, the services of Mr.Chandrakasi, had been regularised inthe post of Semi-skilled worker only from 1.4.1988, similar to theservices of 33 other workers. While so, Mr.Chandrakasi had expired,on 4.2.1990. However, during the period from 1.4.1988 to 4.2.1990, hehad availed extraordinary leave, on a number occasions and therefore,he had not satisfied the conditions required for the payment offamily pension, since he was not in continuous service for a minimumperiod of one year of uninterrupted service, as per Rule 49(2)(a) ofthe Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. As such, the claim of the petitioner,for the payment of family pension, is devoid of merits. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels forthe petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of therecords available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner hasnot shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, asprayed for in the present writ petition. The reason for non-paymentof family pension to the petitioner, in respect of her husbandMr.Chandrakasi, is due to the fact that he has not worked for acontinuous minimum period of one year, between 1.4.1988 and 4.2.1990,as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 7. It has also been stated by the respondents thatMr.Chandrakasi, the husband of the petitioner, was a Semi-skilledworker, appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.720, Industries (SIA.II)Department, dated 16.5.1988, with effect from 1.4.1988. At the timeof his appointment it was clearly mentioned that his service would becounted as fresh service. The Service Centre for Ceramics,Virudachalam, had been transferred to the Tamil Nadu CeramicsLimited, from 15.7.1974. Before the transfer some of the workers, who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were working in the Government Service Centre, as daily rated casualworkers, on contingent bills, were also taken by the Tamil NaduCeramics Limited. After joining the services of Tamil Nadu CeramicsLimited, two wage agreements had been settled between the managementof the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and their workers, including thepetitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi. His pay and allowances werepaid in accordance with the wage agreements. Later, all the Units ofthe Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited had been closed, with effect from31.8.1988 and the Government had taken over the assets of the TamilNadu Ceramics Limited. However, in the Government Order issued by thegovernment for taking over the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, it wasclearly stated that the appointments of the workers would be treatedas fresh appointments. Accordingly, the services of Mr.Chandrakasihad been regularised in the post of Semi-skilled worker, only from1.4.1988. Since he had died on 4.2.1990 and as he had availed manydays of extraordinary leave, the petitioner is not entitled for thefamily pension, as he had not been in continuous service, for aminimum period of one year, from 1.4.1988, as per Rule 49(2)(a) ofthe Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In such circumstances, the contentionsraised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, thewrit petition stands dismissed. No costs.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The Principal Accountant General, State of Tamil Nadu, (Accounts and Entitlement) Tamil Nadu, Chennai.2. The Deputy Director, (Ceramics), Government Service Centre, for Ceramics, Virudachalam.3. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner and Industries and Commerce Department, Fort St. Goerge, Madras-600 009.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Raghavachari, Advocate. S.R.No.32403.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.32522.Writ Petition No.294 of 2007SP (CO)GSK 11.08.2009.