IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.10.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.16547 OF 1999 C.Vishalakshi ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Govt. of Tamil Nadu Secretariate Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai - 600 003 ... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to Letter No.G.D.Na.Ka.B3/4653 dated 04.03.1998 and G.O.Na.Ka.No.B3/19061/98 dated 17.06.1998 sent by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Letter No.11636/Ma Wa 3/98-2 dated 11.05.1998 Govt. Sub Secretary and quash the same and direct the first respondent to communicate to the second respondent that the said G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 16.03.1990 can be applicable to the petitioner's case also consequently direct the second respondent to sanction and pay the Pension and Family Pension arrears from 01.09.1976 and continuous Family Pension to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Govinda Reddy For Respondents : Mr.V.Bharathidasan Standing Counsel for R-1 Mr.G.Desingu Special Government Pleader for R-2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Letter No.G.D.Na.Ka.B3/4653 dated 04.03.1998 and G.O.Na.Ka.No.B3/19061/98 dated 17.06.1998 sent by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Letter No.11636/Ma Wa 3/98-2 dated 11.05.1998 Govt. Sub Secretary, quash the same, to direct the first respondent to communicate to the second respondent that the said G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 16.03.1990 can be applicable to the petitioner's case and also consequently direct the second respondent to sanction and pay the Pension and Family Pension arrears from 01.09.1976 and continuous Family Pension to the petitioner. 2.The petitioner's husband was working as Assistant Fitter in the Metro Water Works Division, Corporation of Chennai. He had joined service on 16.03.1939 and retired on 11.08.1976 and his last drawn pay was Rs.163/- plus D.A. of Rs.95/-. The petitioner's husband died on 06.10.1991 leaving the petitioner and her son as his legal representatives. 3.The petitioner would submit that though her husband has rendered more than 37 years of service as Assistant Fitter in the Metro Water Division, Corporation of Madras, no pensionary benefits were paid to him till his demise, though several Government Orders are passed extending pensionary benefits. The petitioner had approached the Legal Aid Centre, attached to this Court and sent a representation to the second respondent on 06.02.1998 requesting for grant of Family Pension. The second respondent, by an order, dated 04.03.1998, rejected the petitioner's request stating that G.O.Ms.No.132, Municipal Administration Water Supply Department, dated 01.08.1984, granted pension from 01.08.1984 to those who retired from service and those who died after rendering service in the Labour Division of the Corporation of Chennai and that the petitioner's husband rendered service in the Labour Division prior to 01.08.1984 as he had retired from service on 11.08.1976 and died on 06.10.1991 and therefore Family Pension cannot be granted. 4.The petitioner has further submitted that by the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.654, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 13.08.1984 family pension was sanctioned to one Mrs.Rajalakshmi Ammal, wife of Late C.S.Subramanian, who was also an employee working in the Corporation and who died on 03.03.1951. Further, that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.208, dated 14.08.1997 had granted pension in respect of the persons employed in Municipalities who have retired on or after 14.01.1970. Therefore the petitioner would contend that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request is untenable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the correctness of the impugned orders by submitting that the same are arbitrary, illegal and against the Government orders issued in this regard and the Government Order issued by the Municipal Administration Water Supply Department are equally applicable to the second respondent / Corporation and the technical objection raised by the Corporation is unreasonable. 6.Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned standing counsel for the second respondent would submit that the Government Orders, which has been passed in G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997, is not applicable to the service in the respondent Corporation and the said Government Order came to be passed in the light of representation from retired Municipal employees for re-fixing the cut of date for Pension under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Pension Rules, 1970. The Government, after considering the recommendations of the Director of Municipalities, had fix the cut of date as on 14.01.1970. 7.The learned standing counsel would submit that in respect of the second respondent Corporation a recommendation was sent to the Government stating that there are two categories of staff in the Corporation which was peculiar to the Madras Corporation and there was persistent demand to bring all of them in the regular establishment. The Commissioner therefore considered that the conferment of additional benefits like pension, gratuity etc. to the Labour staff of the Corporation of Madras may help in promoting industriousness and efficiency among them and hence in the interest and the welfare of these poor employees, the labour employees may be brought into regular establishment, so as to enable them to avail all the benefits as enjoyed by staff under establishment of Corporation of Madras. The learned counsel for the the second respondent Corporation had also approved a proposal of the Commissioner by resolution dated 03.19.1982 in resolution No.1246/83. The Government considered the same, accepted the proposal of the Commissioner and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.132, Municipal Administration Water Distribution Department dated 01.08.1984 by considering that the labour employees of the Corporation of Madras would be more benefited, if they are brought under establishment and if the pension scheme is extended to them by obtaining exemptions from the provisions of employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder. Thus on and after the issuance of the said Government Order i.e., with effect from 01.08.1984, the employees are enjoying the pension and the family of the deceased employees are also paid family pension. The learned standing counsel would submit that since the petitioner's husband retired on 11.08.1976 i.e., prior to the Government Order, the respondents are justified in rejecting the request and the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.I have carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9.It cannot be disputed that a directions which are issued by the Government, more particularly, the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department are binding on the second respondent corporation. Therefore, any direction issued for granting any benefits to employees or erstwhile employes would be binding on the second respondent. It is seen from the facts of the present case that the petitioner's husband retired on 11.08.1976. The only hurdle which prevents the second respondent from extending benefit of the family pension to the petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.132, Municipal Administration Water Distribution Department dated 01.08.1984, was given effect to prospectively and therefore the benefit cannot be granted to such of those employees who retired prior to 01.08.1984. 10.In my view, the recommendation of the Commissioner of Corporation to bring all the labour employees into regular establishment so as to extend additional benefits like pension and gratuity etc., to the labour staff was in the interest and the welfare of the employees. It is true that such proposal from the Commissioner had emanated during 1982 and approved by a council on 03.02.1982. Therefore, the first respondent while reviewing the matter accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner and brought them under regular establishment. If that be the case, nothing prevented the first respondent from granting such relief to all those employees who were under the control of the second respondent Corporation. Though the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.132 does not fix any cut of date the second respondent has understood that it shall apply with effect from 01.09.1984. It is to be noted that by G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997 the cut of date for payment of pension for Municipal Employees which was originally fixed at 16.06.1983 was subsequently revised as 14.01.1970. If that be the case, it was always upon to the first respondent to consider extending similar benefit to the erstwhile employes of the second respondent corporation who retired from service prior to 01.08.1984. In fact the Government has also in G.O.Ms.No.654, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 13.08.1984 had granted family pension to a wife of the deceased Corporation employee who had worked in the second respondent corporation and retired on 31.03.1948. 11.Hence, in my view, the interpretation given in the impugned order is not sustainable since in respect of another retired employee, family pension had been sanctioned to his widow by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.654 dated 13.08.1984. Therefore the Government while passing such order, obviously did not consider that 01.08.1984 was the cut of date for grant of pension. Hence the proper course which should have been adopted is to forward the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ request to the Government and seek appropriate rules however without adopting such procedure the second respondent chose to summarily reject the petitioner's request. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the above ground. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent Corporation is hereby directed to forward the proposal of the petitioner for grant of pension alongwith its recommendations by considering G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997 as well as G.O.Ms.No.654, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 13.08.1984, and such proposal shall be forwarded by the second respondent Corporation to the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such proposal from the second respondent, the first respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's request for family pension taking into consideration of G.O.Ms.208 dated 14.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.654, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 13.08.1984 as well as the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, as well as the resolution passed by the second respondent corporation in resolution No.1246/83 dated 03.12.1983 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the proposal from the second respondent Corporation. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rns To 1. The Commissioner Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Govt. of Tamil Nadu Secretariate Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai - 600 003 + 1 cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, SR 56710 + 1 cc to Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, Advocate, SR 56631 + 1 cc to Govt., Pleader, SR 56497 W.P.No.16547 OF 1999 GGK (CO) RH (3.12.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/