Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2741 (MAD)

K. Perumal v. District Collector

2012-07-02

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.02.2002, vide which the regular pension, granted to petitioner, was ordered to be stopped. 2. The impugned order reads as under: "OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ACCOUNTS & ENTITLEMENTS), TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI-600 018 PenI/I/VAO/A751981/GA/2909 Dt.4.2.2002 To The Tahsildar Salem Sir, Sub: Pension-VAO-Shri. K.Perumal DOR 30.6.92 PPOM No.A 751981/GA Ref: Your letter No.ROC.14950/94/A2 dt 10.2.95 AG(A&E)PI/V/P-13-43-RN/95-96. I am to refer to your letter on the subject and to state that pension in respect of Shri. K.Perumal VAO DOR 30.6.92 had been authorised by this office vide PPO No.A 751981/GA. In this connection, I am to state that Government of Tamilnadu Revenue Department vide letter No.14725/Ser-7-1/99-7 dated 3.5.2000 read with G.O.121 dated 13.3.01 have clarified that in respect of Ex-VAO's appointed under 10(a)(i) with less than 10 years of qualifying service are entitled for only special pension and not regular pension. This office has also been requested to stop payment of regular pension in respect of these retired officials. Accordingly stop payment orders have been issued in respect of the above retired officials. In this connection, you are requested to forward the Service Book of Shri. K.Perumal for verification and necessary action. The matter may be treated as very urgent. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Sr.AccountsOfficer" 3. The petitioner was appointed as Village Munsiff in the year 1972 and he continued to work till 14.11.1980, when the post of Village Munsiff was abolished. The petitioner thereafter was appointed as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 25.10.1994 on creation of new post of VAO. 4. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.1992, after rendering seven years eight months and five days of service. The service rendered by petitioner with the department was as Village Munsiff from 1972 to 14.11.1990 and as VAO from 25.10.1984 to 30.06.1992. 5. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.786 Revenue Department dated 17.08.1993 to relax the pension rules for specified class of persons, i.e., persons appointed as Village Administrative Officer, after having been relieved as Village Munsiff on account of abolishing of post. It was decided, that for the purpose of pension the service of VAO be counted from the date of abolition of post of Village Munsiff, and not from the date of joining. 6. It was decided, that for the purpose of pension the service of VAO be counted from the date of abolition of post of Village Munsiff, and not from the date of joining. 6. It was in view of G.O.Ms.No.786 Revenue Department dated 17.08.1993, that the petitioner was granted regular pension by taking his service to be more than 10 years. 7. The impugned order referred to above was passed by the respondent no.2, without issuing any show cause notice to petitioner in view of the subsequent clarification issued by the Government. 8. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law, as though it affects the civil rights, it has been passed without following the principle of natural justice. 9. The impugned order also cannot be sustained in law, as it does not take note of the fact, that the pension rules were ordered to be relaxed by the Government for the specified class of persons, i.e. Village Administrative Officer, appointed after being relieved on account of abolition of post of Village Munsiff. 10. The impugned order, therefore being against the settled law, that an order affecting the civil right of a party, cannot be passed without following the principle of natural justice, cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.