Judgment :- K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The Petitioner challenges the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.304 dated 27.05.2004 discontinuing the existing General Provident Fund Scheme with respect to the Government Servants appointed on or after 1st April, 2003 with a consequential prayer to recover from him the General Provident Fund subscription treating his earlier service from 17.11.1997 to 28.04.2003 for pensionary purpose. The Background Facts: 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, as per proceedings dated 11.11.1996, sanctioned 384 posts of typists for appointment in the subordinate judicial service. However, no follow up action was taken to appoint eligible candidates for such appointments. Therefore, the concerned District Judges were permitted to make appointments on temporary basis. About 185 persons were appointed by the said method. The remaining posts were filled up by giving appointment to those who had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange on temporary basis. The Petitioner was one among such candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Vellore. He was appointed as Typist as per the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated 13.11.1997. He joined the service on 17.11.1997. The service of the Petitioner continued till 28.04.2003. In the meantime, regular selection was made through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. When action was taken to discontinue the service of temporary appointees, they have filed batch off Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos.894 to 898, 1810, 5176 and 5298 of 2000. The issue was considered by the Division Bench and having found that there was lack of coordination between the Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which alone resulted in temporary appointments of typists, the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order to accommodate the typists engaged on temporary basis along with those who were recruited on regular basis. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.09.2000 was implemented by the Government as per order under G.O.Ms. No.107 dated 31.01.2003. In accordance with the said Government Order, the Second Respondent issued the proceedings dated 13.03.2003 granting liberty to the Appointing Authorities to regularise the service of the temporary appointees. In the said proceeding, it was indicated that the appointment to the post of Typist would be treated as initial appointment and the temporary service rendered by the employees will not be considered for the purpose of service benefits, viz., pay protection, increment, seniority and promotion, except for pensionary benefits. In the said proceeding, it was indicated that the appointment to the post of Typist would be treated as initial appointment and the temporary service rendered by the employees will not be considered for the purpose of service benefits, viz., pay protection, increment, seniority and promotion, except for pensionary benefits. In pursuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 31.01.2003 and the consequential proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 13.03.2003, the Petitioner was appointed as Copyist in the District Munsif Court at Sholingur in the existing vacancy as per order dated 29.04.2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore. The offer of appointment was accepted by the Petitioner and he jointed the service on 30.04.2003. 3. While the matters stood thus, the Government passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2004, consequent to the introduction of Contributory Pension scheme to the Tamil Nadu State Government employees who are recruited on or before 01.04.2003. As per the said Government Order, amendment was made to sub-rule (2) of the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) to the effect that the said Rule would not apply to the Government servants appointed on or after 1st April, 2003, to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, either temporarily or permanently. The Petitioner was originally admitted to the benefits of the General Provident Fund and he was allotted a permanent account number. In view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27th May 2004, by proceedings dated 29.04.2003, the District Munsif, Sholingur, declined to recover the General Provident Fund subscription from the salary of the Petitioner on the ground that his appointment as Copyist was only on 30.04.2003 and as such, he was not entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund Scheme. According to the Petitioner, the proceedings issued by the Second Respondent gives an indication that his earlier service would be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and as such, there was no justification for denying the benefits of Provident Fund Scheme by treating the proceedings dated 29.04.2003 on the file of the 3rd Respondent as an order of fresh appointment with effect from 30.04.2003. It was only in such circumstances, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition to challenge the Government Order which was the basis for denying him the benefits of the General Provident Fund. 4. It was only in such circumstances, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition to challenge the Government Order which was the basis for denying him the benefits of the General Provident Fund. 4. The 3rd Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, wherein it was stated that the action of the District Munsif, Sholingur, in not recovering the General Provident Fund subscription from the month of July, 2004, is perfectly in order in view of the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004. According to the third Respondent, the Petitioner was appointed as a Copyist as fresh candidate and he joined the service during the forenoon of 30.04.2003 and as such, he was outside the purview of the General Provident Fund Scheme. 5. The Second Respondent has also filed a Counter Affidavit justifying the action taken by the Head of Office on account of the order in G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004. According to the Second Respondent, the Petitioner, having been appointed on 30.04.2003, the new General Provident Fund Scheme introduced by the Government alone is applicable to him and as such, there is no basis for his claim for the benefit of the General Provident Fund Scheme. Discussion: 6. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Vellore, for appointment as Typist in the District of Vellore. The appointment order was issued by the Third Respondent as per proceedings dated 13.11.1997 appointing him as Typist in the Court of District Munsif at Gudiyatham. The Petitioner continued in such service till he was terminated as per proceedings dated 28.04.2003. 7. The entire background facts leading to the appointment of the temporary employees like the Petitioner as Typist and the subsequent developments leading to the selection of Typist on regular basis by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are all found in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.894 of 2000, etc. batch. The Division Bench found that the problem leading to the ouster of the temporary appointees had arisen because of the lack of coordination between the Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission., The Division Bench pointed out that the Government, when sanctioned the post, was also duty bound to see that such posts are filled by persons qualified or competent, within a reasonable time from the date on which the posts were sanctioned. Therefore, the task before the Division Bench was to protect the interest of the temporary employees while ensuring appointment o the newly recruited typists. The Division Bench made considerable efforts to call for the particulars regarding the vacancies and ultimately passed an equitable order directing the appointment of the newly recruited personnel. The judgment of the Division Bench was accepted by the Government, which resulted in issuing a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 31.01.2003. The Third Respondent, by issuing a consequential order, permitted regularisation of the temporary employees. However, it was made clear that the appointment would commence only from the date of fresh appointment and the earlier services would not be counted for the purpose other than for payment of retirement benefits. It was only in pursuance of the said proceedings, the Petitioner was appointed with effect from 30.04.2003. 8. The core question to be decided in this Writ Petition is as to whether the earlier service of the Petitioner for the period from 17.11.1997 to 28.04.2003 has to be counted for the purpose of giving the benefits under the General Provident Fund Scheme. 9. The Petitioner was admitted to the General Provident Fund Scheme and he was also allotted the Account No.29929 and contribution was recovered from his salary till 28.04.2003. There is no dispute that the General Provident Fund Scheme is in the nature of a retirement benefit and the amount would be paid to the employees only at the time of their retirement. It was not the case of the Respondent that the name of the Petitioner was removed from the General Provident Fund Scheme. He continued to be a member of the Scheme till his ouster on 28.04.2003. The Petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 30.04.2003. The proceeding issued by the Second Respondent clearly show that the earlier service would be counted for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits. The Petitioner has no claim with respect to pay protection, increment, seniority or promotion. His claim was only in respect of payment of pensionary benefits including continuation of his membership in the General Provident Fund Scheme. When the Second Respondent has made it clear that the earlier service would be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, there was no basis for denying the benefit of the said service for the purpose of General Provident Fund Scheme. When the Second Respondent has made it clear that the earlier service would be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, there was no basis for denying the benefit of the said service for the purpose of General Provident Fund Scheme. The Petitioner has to be treated as appointee with effect from 17.11.1997 for the purpose of pensionary benefits including the General Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, the Third Respondent was not justified in his contention that the Petitioner was no longer a member of the General Provident Fund in view of his fresh appointment from 30.04.2003. When the Second Respondent has clearly stated that his past services from 17.11.1997 will be counted for pensionary benefits, the Third Respondent should have treated the Petitioner as a member of the General Provident Fund Scheme by taking note of his earlier appointment on 17.11.1997, which continued till 28.04.2003. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Petitioner has made out a case for continuance in the General Provident Fund Scheme not withstanding the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004. 9. A. We make it clear that for the purpose of membership in the General Provident Fund, the date of appointment of the Petitioner dates back to the date of original appointment in the year 1997. Conclusion: 10. In the result, we direct the Third Respondent to restore the membership of the Petitioner in the General Provident Fund Scheme and recover the subscription amount from him towards the General Provident Fund Scheme without any break treating his date of initial appointment as the entry into, service for all pensionary benefits including payment of Provident Fund. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.