1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).Nos.204 to 211 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2011 1.The Accountant General (A&E), Pension, 391, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhuangar. : Appellants in All Writ Appeals Vs. K.Ponnugurusamy : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.204 of 2011 K.Muthiah : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.205 of 2011 Chinna Mariappan : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.206 of 2011 R.Muthiah : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.207 of 2011 S.Rasu Thevar : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.208 of 2011 Chakkan : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.209 of 2011 G.Ramar : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.210 of 2011 K.Subbiah : Respondent in W.A.(MD).No.211 of 2011 PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06.03.2009 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.11094, 11095, 11096, 11097, 11098, 11099, 11100 and 11101 of 2008 on the file of this Court. These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constiution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in 1. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1047(in WP 11094/08) 2. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1041(in WP 11095/08) 3. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1037(in WP 11096/08) 4. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1031(in WP 11097/08) 5. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1049(in WP 11098/08) 6. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1045(in WP 11099/08) 7. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1035(in WP 11100/08) 8. AG(A&E) Legal Cell / WP.5404/2008/1033(in WP 11101/08) respectively dated 24.10.2008 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to sanction the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in each petition from the date of retirement calculating the petitioners service from the petitioner's appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Appellant 1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Appellant 2 : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen COMMON JUDGMENT [Common Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] Since common issues are involved in all these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. 2. These Writ Appeals are directed against the Common Order dated 06.03.2009 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.11094, 11095, 11096, 11097, 11098, 11099, 11100 and 11101 of 2008. 3. The respondent in each of the Writ Appeals filed the respective Writ Petitions and challenged the order dated 24.10.2008 declining to consider their request for the grant of pensionary benefits and for a consequential direction to the appellants to sanction pensionary benefits to the respondents from the date of retirement calculating the respondents' service from the date of their appointments. 4. The case of the respondents in these Writ Appeals before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents in W.A.(MD).Nos.204 to 210 of 2011 were appointed as Village Assistants in the Revenue Department on 16.10.1978, 17.02.1970, 21.04.1982, 05.08.1965, 26.12.1980, 01.08.1968, 13.05.1972, except the respondent in W.A. (MD).No.211 of 2011, who was appointed in the year 1962 and they retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004, 30.09.2004, 31.05.2003, 28.02.2003, 30.06.2004, 30.09.2000, 30.04.2004 and 30.11.2001 respectively. For claiming pension, the respondents herein made requests before the appellants. By proceedings dated 24.10.2008, the said request was rejected by the first appellant on the ground that the service rendered by them prior to the regularization cannot be taken into consideration for pensionary benefits and also on the ground that they retired before completion of ten years of their service, and therefore, service gratuity and DCRG alone were authorized. 5. Challenging the said order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the first appellant, the said Writ Petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge, by Common Order dated 06.03.2009, following a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Srivastava v. Union of India and ors., reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 241 and an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Chinna Alagi, O.A. v. State of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (5) CTC 320, allowed the said Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned order and directed the appellants to process with the pension papers of the respondents herein and issue appropriate consequential orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Questioning the said Common Order dated 24.10.2008, the appellants have come forward with the present Writ Appeals. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the first appellant, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of the case and perused the records carefully. 8. Admittedly, the respondents in W.A.(MD).Nos.204 to 210 of 2011 were appointed as Village Assistants in the Revenue Department on 16.10.1978, 17.02.1970, 21.04.1982, 05.08.1965, 26.12.1980, 01.08.1968, 13.05.1972, except the respondent in W.A.(MD).No.211 of 2011, who was appointed in the year 1962 and they were brought into the regular establishment with effect from 01.06.1995 and they retired from service on 31.03.2004, 30.09.2004, 31.05.2003, 28.02.2003, 30.06.2004, 30.09.2000, 30.04.2004 and 30.11.2001 respectively. The request of the respondents seeking pension was rejected by the first appellant, since the respondents have not completed ten years of qualifying service. 9. It is useful to refer to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which deals with commencement of qualifying service for pensionary benefits, which reads as follows:- "11. Commencement of qualifying service – Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the case of a Government servant retiring on or after the 1st October, 1969, temporary or officiating service in a pensionable post whether rendered in a regular capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service even it is not followed by confirmation." 10. A cursory reading of the above rule makes it manifestly clear that the qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date on which he takes charge of the post, to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or in temporary capacity. 11. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.363 of 2010 [The Tahsildar, Vs. Esakki and others] and by Judgment dated 20.08.2010, the Division Bench, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Srivastava v. Union of India and ors., reported in 1996 (1) LLJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 241 and also the order of this Court in Chinna Alagi, O.A. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (5) CTC 320, dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Government. 12. In view of the said settled position of law and the Pension Rules, as stated supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Common Order dated 06.03.2009 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.11094, 11095, 11096, 11097, 11098, 11099, 11100 and 11101 of 2008 is confirmed and these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA ) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Accountant General (A&E), Pension, 391, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhuangar. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 8836 COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).Nos.204 to 211 of 2011 14.02.2011 NB SMA/21.03.2011/4C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/