Judgment :- (Prayer: Writ Petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.4197/93 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to direct the respondents to modify the order issued in Ni.Mu.No.O.15/12272/93 dated 19.04.1993 of the second respondent allowing him the full pensionary benefits due to him taking into consideration of services for 38 years from 16.11.1954 to 31.08.1992 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement and consequential benefits of gratuity, commutation of pension etc.) The prayer in the writ petition is to modify the order dated 19.04.1993 issued by the second respondent allowing him the full pensionary benefits due to him taking into account, the service for 38 years from 16.11.1954 to 31.08.1992 with the interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement with benefits of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the time of` arguments fairly submitted that he is not pressing for the interest of 0the payment. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Maistry (Sanitary Supervisor) on 19.11.1954 in Tirukoilur Town Panchayat. The petitioner service was confirmed on 27.11.1956. During the year 1959, Thirukoilur Town Panchayat was bifurcated as Tirukoilur Town Panchayat and Arakandanallur Village Panchayat. The petitioner was transferred to Arakandanallur Village Panchayat by the Executive Officer, Tirukoilur Panchayat with effect from 01.03.1959 as he was the experienced Sanitary Maistry. No willingness was obtained from the petitioner for transfer to the Arakandanallur Village Panchayat. The said Arakandanallur Village Panchayat itself became Town Panchayat in October 1977 and the petitioner continued as Sanitary Maistry of the said village panchayat till 24.11.1991. The petitioner was transferred to Thirukovilur Town Panchayat on 25.11.1991 and retired on super-annuation on 31.08.1992 after the continuous service of about 38 years. 3. The grievances of the petitioner is that while sanctioning the retirement pensionary benefits, the service rendered by the petitioner in Arakandanallur Village Panchayat from 01.03.1959 to 30.09.1977 was not considered, since the services of the petitioner in the Village Panchayat is not entitled to be considered for pension and the services rendered in Town Panchayat alone was taken into consideration. In the order dated 19.04.1993, the second respondent had taken into account the Town Panchayat service alone and deducted other retirement benefits. Hence, the petitioner filed above above O.A. 4. In the order dated 19.04.1993, the second respondent had taken into account the Town Panchayat service alone and deducted other retirement benefits. Hence, the petitioner filed above above O.A. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and in paragraph No.4 it is stated that as per Tamilnadu Panchayat Union and Panchayat Services Pension Rules 1976, service of Town Panchayats and Town Committees are eligible for pension and the petitioner having served in the Arakandanallur Village Panchayat from 01.03.1959 to 30.09.1977, the said service cannot be counted for pension and other purpose, as the petitioner''s service is not in pensionable establishment during the said period. 5. According to the petitioner, the deductions are also made from the salary of the petitioner towards the contribution of pension while he was serving in the Village Panchayat and therefore the respondents are bound to take into consideration, the above period of service in the Village Panchayat and also for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of the second respondent, in not counting service rendered in the Village Panchayat, is unsustainable. In view of the bifurcation of original Town Panchayat, the petitioner was forced to go to Village Panchayat and no option was also obtained by the respondent from the petitioner and the petitioner having paid the contribution towards the pension fund even during the service in Village Panchayat, he is entitled to get pension and other benefits by counting his service in Village Panchayat also. Learned Government Advocate argued that since the petitioner served in the Village Panchayat, his non-pensionable service was not counted by the respondents for retirement benefits and for fixing pension. 7. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the appointment of the petitioner was in the Thirukoilur Town Panchayat which is a pensionable establishment and due to bifurcation of Town Panchayat into Thirukoilur Town Panchayat and Arakandanallur Village Panchayat on 01.03.1959, the petitioner was compelled to go to the Village Panchayat and he served in the said Village Panchayat from 01.03.1959 to 30.09.1977. While working there also the petitioner contributed towards the pension fund. While working there also the petitioner contributed towards the pension fund. The petitioner having been forced to serve in the Village Panchayat without any option from the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to deny the said service from 01.03.1959 to 30.09.1977 for the purpose of calculation of pension and other terminal benefits. The petitioner also produced certain receipts for the payment of pension and contribution while he was serving in the Village Panchayat since the respondents sent the petitioner to the Village Panchayat on bifurcation without the petitioner''s option, the petitioner is entitled to count the said service also for the purpose of pension and other benefits. In fact, the Executive Officer of Thirukoilur Town Panchayat, in his Letter No.A5/1759/95 dated 03.11.1995, stated that the petitioner''s request is well founded and the orders shall be passed by the second respondent to that effect. 8. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get the said service in the Village Panchayat also to count for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits. The second respondent is therefore directed to count the service of the petitioner form 01.03.1959 to 30.09.1977 as pensionable service and pass revised orders as recommended by the Executive Officer in his letter dated 03.11.1995 and sanction retirement benefits including the revision of pension from 01.09.1992. The arrears pursuant to the revision of pension and other benefits payable shall be calculated and shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.