S.Pattammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUWrit Petition No.34625 of 2006 (O.A.No.3145 of 1998)S.Pattammal..Petitioner/Applicant vs.1. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai.2. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai.3. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., Chennai...Respondents/RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to issuean order stating that the petitioner has retired as a GovernmentServant on voluntary retirement on the afternoon of 30.6.93 and shebe allowed all consequential retirement benefits. For Petitioner :Mr.K.V.SrinivasaraghavanFor Respondents :Mr.R.Neelakantan, G.A./RR1 & 2 :Mr.R.Madanagopal for R-3ORDERThe petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the GovernmentDairy Farm at Madhavaram, which was originally a GovernmentDepartment under the Commissioner for Milk Production. Subsequently,the Government formulated Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation,in which the erstwhile Government servants were sent on deputation.The petitioner worked under the Corporation. Thereafter, theGovernment took a policy decision to wind up the Corporation and toform a Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation, viz., Tamil Nadu Co- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operative Milk Producers' Federation (TNCMPF). The erstwhileGovernment servants and the newly recruited corporation employeeswere also sent to the Federation. It was, at that stage, theGovernment issued G.O.Ms.No.1921, Agriculture Department, dated8.11.1983, terminating the lien of the Government servants and madethem to get absorbed in the corporation/federation. It was, at thisjuncture, several employees, who are originally the Governmentservants, filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.No.11943of 1986 and other cases. 2.In view of the constitution of the Tribunal, the writ petitionswere sent to the Tribunal and re-numbered as Transfer Applications.The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the employees on theground that a Government servant cannot be forced to snap his lienwith the Government without his consent. Aggrieved by the same, therespondent-State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and thematters were dealt with by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1387to 1395 of 1993. The arguments raised in the present writ petitionwere also advanced before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courtallowed the State appeal. The following passages found in the saidjudgment of the Supreme Court may be usefully extracted below:-"We agree with Mr.Chidambaram that a government servantcannot be deprived of his status as a "civil servant"without his consent. This proposition of law isunexceptionable. But at the same time the facts andcircumstances of this case leave no manner of doubt that theonly course left for the respondents – employees is toaccept the service under the Federation as permanentemployees. The Corporation was created in the year 1972 and762 posts were transferred to the Corporation by the StateGovernment. Obviously, all these posts constituted theDairy Development Department of the Government. There maynot be as many posts left in the Dairy DevelopmentDepartment to accommodate these employees who decline to optfor permanent absorption in the service of the Federation.Therefore, the only practical way to solve the problem atthis point of time and in the special facts andcircumstances of this case, would be to hold that all theemployees shall be deemed to have opted to join the serviceof the Federation. We are, however, inclined to examine thequestion as to whether the terminal benefits offered in GO1921 are reasonable or are arbitrary in any respect...We may now examine the terminal benefits offered in GO1921. We have already enumerated in detail the saidbenefits in earlier part of the judgment. We are of the viewthat except the provisions regarding family pension andapplication of Future Liberalised Pension Rules (item 3(c)and 3(f) of GO 1921) all other provisions of the said GO are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable and no fault can be found therewith. We are ofthe view that once an optee for permanent absorption in theFederation is entitled to prorata pension in respect of theperiod of service rendered by him under the Government, heis also entitled to the benefit of the family pension. We,therefore, strike down para 3(c) of the GO and direct thatthe respondents shall be entitled to the benefit of familypension on the basis of prorata pension given to them.Similarly, we see no justification why the employees, aftertheir permanent absorption in the service of the Federation,be not given the benefit of further liberalisation ofpension rules, if any, in respect of the pension which theyare already drawing from the Government. This provision isalso on the face of it arbitrary. We, therefore, strike downpara 3(f) of the said GO and held that the employees aftertheir permanent absorption with the Federation shall beentitled to the benefit of the liberalised pension rules, ifany, in future. All other provisions of the GO 1921 arereasonable and as such we uphold the same.We make it clear that all those employees who haveretired after February 1, 1903 they shall be deemed to haveopted to join the service of the Federation permanently and,as such, they would be entitled to terminal benefits interms of GO 1921."3.It is significant that the petitioner was not a party in thosecases before the Supreme Court, but she preferred to stay out of thatlitigation and at the tail end of her service, viz., at the age of 57years, she filed the present O.A. being O.A.No.3145 of 1998 beforethe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for a direction totreat her as a Government servant on being voluntarily retired fromservice on 30.6.93 and to allow the consequential benefits. It mustbe noted here that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirementwas accepted by the federation and not by the Government. Anyhow,the petitioner filed the O.A. raising identical contentions, whichwere dealt with by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred toabove.4.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stoodtransferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34625 of 2006.On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent-State has filed adetailed counter-affidavit dated 24.2.99 rejecting the request of thepetitioner. After relying heavily on the judgment of the SupremeCourt, it is stated that the State Government did not give any optionforum for the employees to opt to serve in the Government service orto get absorbed permanently in the Federation. On the other hand,there are no posts left in the Milk Dairy project and therefore,there is no option for the petitioner except to serve the Federation.It is also stated in paragraph 22 that the interim order of theSupreme Court is fully applicable to the petitioner on the question https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of release of terminal benefits upto 31.1.1981 in accordance with therules applicable to Government servants read with G.O.Ms.No.1921,Agriculture department, dated 8.11.1983. It was further contendedthat the petitioner's attempt to file a fresh O.A., that too at thetail end of her service, is nothing but an attempt to re-interpretthe order of the Supreme Court by the Tribunal and the attempt of thepetitioner cannot be countenanced.5.Though the learned counsel wanted to argue once againelaborately, this Court, as being bound by the directions of theSupreme Court in the identical matters, is not inclined to hear thearguments of the petitioner except by stating that the petitioner'scase is not different from the persons, who are covered by thejudgment of the Supreme Court. It is also admitted that thepetitioner is receiving pension as a Government servant, though at areduced rate because of the limited service that has been countedwhile he was in Government service.6.In the light of the same, the writ petition will standdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsraTo1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai.3. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., Chennai.1 cc To Mr.R.Madanagopal, Advocate, SR.438941 cc To Mr.K.U.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate, SR.43808W.P.No.34625 of 2006PUR(CO)SRA(11/9/2009)