Judgment : Claiming that the petitioner was working as a regular Khalasi in the respondent- Board from 20.11.1971 and thereafter absorbed in a regular vacancy from 1.1.1984 as a helper in the time scale of pay, the petitioner complains that the respondent, by proceedings dated 21.4.1992, have denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he had not put in a minimum of ten years pensionable service for granting pension, as he had serviced only eight years and four months, namely from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992, when the petitioner had retired on superannuation. Hence the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in proceedings in Order Rc.No.21714/2/92, dated 21.4.1992 and proceedings in Order Rc.No.17672/P2/92, dated 28.5.1992 on the file of the respondent, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to count the entire period of service of the petitioner from 20.11.1971 to 30.4.1992 amounting to 20 years and 6 months as qualifying service and grant pension and balance of the service gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity with interest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the petitioner was appointed as a regular helper on 1.1.1984 and has retired on superannuation on 30.4.1992, he was working as Khalasi in the respondent- Board ever since 20.11.1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioners service as Khalasi from 20.11.1971 to 31.12.1983 temporarily also should be taken into account along with the period of service from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992, and in which event, he had put in an uninterrupted service of twenty years and six months in the respondent- Board, and therefore, has satisfied the required pensionary service of a minimum of ten years in the respondent- Board for the purpose of granting pension. 3. Per contra, the respondent, in their counter-affidavit, have averred that the service of the petitioner as Khalasi is only on daily related basis and hence the same will not be taken into account for pensionary benefits as per Rule 2(a) of the Tamil nadu Pension Rules. 4. In reply, Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which prescribes the enhancement of qualifying service for granting pension. 4. In reply, Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which prescribes the enhancement of qualifying service for granting pension. He also brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, wherein, the Government, after referring Rules 2 and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, had directed that half of the service from contingency shall be allowed to count towards pension along with regular service, subject to the condition stated therein, one of them being that the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned e.g., Malis, Chowkidar, Khalasis, etc. 5. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that half of service of the petitioner from 20.11.1971 till 31.12.1983 during which period he was working as Khalasi temporarily should be taken into consideration along with the regular service of the petitioner from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992 and that the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for pension, since he had rendered more than ten years of pensionary service under the respondent- Board. 6. After considering the contentions of both sides, I am obliged to refer Rules 2(a) and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988, which read as follows: Rule 2: “Application: Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to all Government Servants appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent, but shall not apply to (a) persons in casual and daily rated employment. Rule 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 1st October, 1969, continuous, temporary or officiating service in a pensionable post whether entered in a regular capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service even it is not followed by confirmation. In the case of a Government Servant retiring on or after 1st October, 1969, continuous, temporary or officiating service in a pensionable post whether entered in a regular capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service even it is not followed by confirmation. Note: In the case of the employees of the former Pudukkottai State and persons transferred from the former Travancore Cochin State consequent on the reorganization of States continuous temporary or officiating service rendered in a regular capacity under the former Pudukkottai State or the former Travancore-Cochin State shall count in full for purposes of pension: Provided that, • (a) in the case of a Government Servant, service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity; • (b) in the case of a Government Servant whose year and month of birth are known, but not the exact date the 16th of the month should be treated as the date of birth. When the year of birth is known but not the month and date 1st July of the year shall be taken; • (c) In the case of a Government Servant with no military service who gives on recruitment only his age, but not the year of his birth the year should be arrived at by deducting from the year of recruitment the given age and then the date of birth should be taken as the 1st July of that year: Provided further that in the case of a Government Servant with previous military service the date of birth is fixed as laid down below: When a military employee is transferred to a civil department under the Government and assumes a civilian status, the date of birth to be entered in his service book should be the date dated by him at the time of attestation. When the documents referring to the previous military service of an individual do not give the definite ate of birth but only the age stated at the time of attestation, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of attestation e.g., if an ex-soldier was enrolled on 1st January, 1910 and if, on that date, his age was stated to be 18, his date of birth should be taken as 1st January, 1892. This procedure will apply to cases arising on or after 27th June, 1938. This procedure will apply to cases arising on or after 27th June, 1938. Notwithstanding anything contained above in cases where S.S.L.C. or any other school certificate is available, the date or birth, as entered therein should be taken into account.” G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988: “Government of Tamilnadu Abstract Pension - Counting of half of the service paid from Contingencies with regular service for pension Orders issued. Finance (Pension) Department G.O.Ms.No.437 Dated 23rd June, 1988 Vibhava Aani 99 Thiruvaluvar Aandu 2019. Order: According to Rules 2 and 11 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules 1978, periods of service paid from contingencies do not count as qualifying service for pension. The question of counting periods of service paid from contingencies for pension has been examined and it has been decided by the Government to follow the Government of India Pension Rules in the matter. 2. The Government accordingly direct that half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards pension along with regular service subject to the following conditions: • (a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment (and not part time for a portion of the day). • (b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned e.g., Malis, Chowkidar, Khalasis etc. • (c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made out on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishments. • (d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. • (e) Subject to the above condition being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies will be limited to the period after 1st January, 1961 for which authentic records of service may be available. 3. The orders shall be applicable to Tamilnadu Government Servants, employees of Local Bodies and aided teaching institutions who retire on or after the date of this order. 4. Necessary amendments to the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 will be issued separately. (By Order of the Governor) A.M.Swaminathan, Commissioner and Secretary to Government.” 7. 3. The orders shall be applicable to Tamilnadu Government Servants, employees of Local Bodies and aided teaching institutions who retire on or after the date of this order. 4. Necessary amendments to the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 will be issued separately. (By Order of the Governor) A.M.Swaminathan, Commissioner and Secretary to Government.” 7. The harmonies construction of Rules 2(a) and 11 and G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988 make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to seek the benefit of half of service of his casual employment as a Khalasi from 20.11.1971 to 31.12.1983 and in which event, the refusal of pensionary benefits to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings, in considered opinion of the Court, is detrimental and violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 8. It is well-settled in law that in a matter of granting pension, rules have to be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimant, as the pension scheme is a welfare measure intended by the Government. Even if the very service of the petitioner from 20.11.1971 to 31.12.1983 as temporary Khalasi is disputed by the respondent, the Head of the Department of the respondent- Board is obliged to verify the entire service of the petitioner as per Rule 62(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, not satisfied with the refusal of pension to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings dated 21.4.1992, which is impugned in the above writ petition, the same is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent- Board to refer to the Head of the Department, who shall exercise the power under Rule 62(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, consider the entire service of the petitioner, temporarily as Khalasi from 20.11.1971 to 30.12.1983 and as well as permanently as Helper from 1.1.1984 to 30.4.1992, when the petitioner retired on superannuation, to commute the entire service of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.437, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1988 and pass appropriate orders with thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.