Judgment 1. Heard the submissions made on either side. The respondents filed counter affidavits. 2. The petitioner joined service as B-II Class Siddha Doctor on 13.04.1957 and was employed as Rural Medical Practitioner, in the Panchayat Union, on full time basis. The persons, similarly situated like the petitioner, also worked in various Panchayat Unions. Unfortunately, they were not granted time scale of pay and other benefits payable to the Doctors, who are governed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Rules. That is, while the Allopathy Doctors were given time scale of pay and other benefits, those indigenous Indian Medicine Doctors were not given time scale of pay. 3. Initially, one Dr. Shanmugam, a B-II Medical Practitioner came before this Court, seeking regular time scale of pay, by filing writ petition, in W.P.No.1538 of 1978. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition by directing the respondents therein to provide him time scale of pay. The said order of this Court was implemented and the Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1068, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 28.06.1983. However, the said Government Order confined to Dr. Shanmugam alone. The other Doctors, who were similarly situated like him, were not extended the benefits of the said Government Order. 4. In those circumstances, another Doctor, by name J. Krishnamoorthy, who was a Medical Practitioner in Indian Medicine, working in the Rural dispensary, approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.863 of 1989, seeking direction to the respondents therein, to provide him time scale of pay, as he has been doing the regular full time job, like other Allopathy Doctors. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 08.03.1995. The writ appeal preferred by the State against the said order was dismissed by the First Bench of this Court on 01.02.1996, in W.A.Nos.922, 1036 of 1995 and 95 of 1996. In fact, the First Bench has modified the order of the learned single Judge slightly in favour of the Rural Medical Practitioners, which reads as follows: “(b) The order of the learned Judge is confirmed with the slight modification that the petitioner will be entitled to the scales of pay from 01.10.1984 and not from 11.07.1985 as directed by the Learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.922 of 1995 is allowed to the above extent. Writ Appeal Nos.1036 of 1995 and 95 of 1996 are dismissed with the above observation. Writ Appeal No.922 of 1995 is allowed to the above extent. Writ Appeal Nos.1036 of 1995 and 95 of 1996 are dismissed with the above observation. No costs.” 5. Since relief was given only to Dr. Krishnamoorthy, a batch of writ petitions were filed and disposed of by the First Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.08.1997, in W.P.Nos.2007 to 2017, 3719, 5116 to 5118 of 1997. The First Bench of this Court, has followed the order dated 01.02.1996 in W.A.Nos.922 of 1995 etc., batch, referred to above. 6. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the directions issued by the First Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.2007 of 1997 etc., batch, to the Government, to implement the order, to all similarly situated Doctors, without forcing them to approach this Court by individual writ petitions, as follows:- “2. It has been brought to our notice that the State is asking each individual to approach this Court to get an appropriate order by filing writ petitions in respect of the cases which are squarely covered by the law laid down by the said Judgment. We hereby direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to issue a direction to the Authorities concerned that the order of this Court should be implemented to all eligible persons, who are squarely covered by the law laid down by the above judgment and not to direct each individual to approach this Court for an appropriate relief.” 7. Only thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.16, Rural Development Department, dated 29.01.1998, implementing the orders of this Court, by granting time scale of pay, to the Rural Medical Practitioners, with effect from 01.10.1984. 8. However, within a short span of time, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.250, Rural Development Department, dated 14.09.2000, taking away the benefit granted in G.O.Ms.No.16, and thereby annulled the judgments of this Court. The said Government Order proceeded erroneously, on the basis that, these Rural Medical Practitioners, on Indian Medicine side, are part time employees, and therefore, though they were given time scale of pay, they are not entitled for pension. Clause 2(e) of G.O.Ms.No.250 is extracted hereunder in this regard: “e) Pension benefits are eligible only for the regular employees. The Panchayat union rural medical officer post is a part time post and therefore the part time rural medical officers are not entitled for the pension benefits. Clause 2(e) of G.O.Ms.No.250 is extracted hereunder in this regard: “e) Pension benefits are eligible only for the regular employees. The Panchayat union rural medical officer post is a part time post and therefore the part time rural medical officers are not entitled for the pension benefits. The other terminal benefits applicable for regular employees like selection grade, special grade, compassionate ground appointments, group insurance, provident fund, encashment of earn leave and surrender are not applicable to the part time medical officers.” 9. Hence, again the Rural Medical Practitioners, filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.30003 of 2004 etc., batch, and the same was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.04.2006 by quashing G.O.Ms.No.250 insofar as describing the serving Rural Medical Practitioners as part time employees, and denying the benefits. In this regard, paras 23, 25 and 26 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: “23. In spite of clear and categorical finding by this Court that the rural medical officers are holding the post on permanent basis and working on the prescribed working hours on regular basis and not on part-time basis, the impugned G.O. proceeds on the basis that the post is part-time post. This is in spite of the fact that the order of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court have clearly held that the rural medical officers should be given the benefit of time scale of pay as they were working on regular basis. The Government has from time to time prescribed the working hours and granted the service benefits like special pay, special compensatory allowance, medical allowance, payment on surrender of earned leave, selection grade, medical leave, earned leave, etc. to the petitioner in W.P.No.20316 of 2002, namely Dr. J. Krishnamoorthy, however the only claim which was denied to this petitioner is the pension and other terminal benefits based on the impugned G.O.Ms.No.250. 24............ 25. On a clear reading of the various orders of this Court and the proceedings of the Government cited and on going through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.250, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.250 at the best deals with the status of the rural medical dispensaries for the future. It also speaks about the vacancies to be filled up. It also speaks about the vacancies to be filled up. However, a portion of the G.O.Ms.No.250 deals with the service condition of rural medical officers who are already employed full-time and on a permanent basis. In this regard, Clause (e) of paragraph 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.250 becomes relevant as it seeks to deny the pensionary benefit to the rural medical officers on the ground that the post of rural medical officer is a part-time post and therefore, they are not entitled to pension benefits. Though Clause (e) of paragraph 3 of the G.O. can be said to be prospective, it is in effect retrospective in nature. However, on a reading of Clause (f) of paragraph 3 of the G.O., it is seen that a reference is made to the time scale of pay paid to rural medical officers pursuant to the orders of the High Court. In respect of Clause (f), the employees are referred to as part-time medical officers. In the same manner, the opening paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.250, dated 14.9.2000 also refers to part-time rural medical officers and that their time scale of pay has been fixed pursuant to the orders of this Court. It is on the basis of this observation in the G.O.Ms.No.250, the pensionary benefits were denied on the ground that the pensionary benefits are eligible only for permanent employees and not to part time employees. 26. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.250 insofar as it refers to post of rural medical officer as part-time post and the rural medical officers as part-time rural medical officers, is clearly opposed to and contrary to the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.863 of 1989, dated 8.3.1995 and the order of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.922 of 1995 etc., dated 1.2.1996. It is also contrary to various Government Orders already issued fixing the time scale of pay insofar as the rural medical officers are concerned. Several correspondences between the Government and the authorities which we have referred to earlier, show that the rural medical officers are regular employees working on the prescribed working hours and therefore, it will be incorrect to state at the present, that they are part-time rural medical officers employed in the part-time post. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.250 which refers to the medical officers as part-time medical officers employed in part-time post, is incorrect and has to be necessarily interfered with. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.250 which refers to the medical officers as part-time medical officers employed in part-time post, is incorrect and has to be necessarily interfered with. The rural medical officers cater to the health needs of the people living in remote villages. In the earlier part of this order, we have referred to G.O.No.2446, Education and Public Health Department (Public Health), dated 24.9.1937, where the Government has even allowed the Presidents of the Local Boards to fix the working hours of rural dispensaries. It is therefore apparent that the rural dispensaries have been functioning for more than six decades. However, surprisingly, it is for the first time in the year 2000 that the Government has woken up from its slumber to state that the functions of the Panchayat Unions dispensaries should be assessed. It only speaks about the lethargy on the part of the authorities concerned in having failed to address themselves to the needs of the rural people and the working of the rural dispensaries.” 10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Rural Medical Practitioners, who retired from service, on reaching the age of superannuation, were given pension, by counting the service from 01.10.1984 only and the half of the service rendered by them before 01.10.1984 was not taken into account for the purpose of pension, as per rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 11. Already some of those Medical Practitioners, like the petitioner in this writ petition, approached this Court, by filing W.P.Nos.53 to 56 of 2011, with a similar prayer, to count 50% of the service rendered by them before 01.10.1984, for the purpose of pension, as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Those writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 12.11.2011. The Government took it on appeal, in W.A.No.1618 of 2012, and a Division Bench of this Court rejected the writ appeal on 08.10.2012, and confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. Thereafter, it was stated that the order of this Court was complied with. 12. The Government took it on appeal, in W.A.No.1618 of 2012, and a Division Bench of this Court rejected the writ appeal on 08.10.2012, and confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. Thereafter, it was stated that the order of this Court was complied with. 12. It is unfortunate that the Government has not chosen to implement the order of this Court, to all other Rural Medical Practitioners, by counting 50% of their service rendered before 01.10.1984, particularly, when the same was complied with, in respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.53 to 56 of 2011, after the order dated 08.10.2012, in W.A.No.1618 of 2012. I also express the same anguish as that of the First Bench of this Court that was expressed in the order dated 08.08.1997 in W.P.Nos.2007 of 1997 etc. and is extracted at para 6 of this order. That is, the welfare state should not make its employees, particularly the retired employees, who are at their evening of their life, to approach this Court, though this Court passed orders, in respect of similarly situated persons and the same was also complied with. However, the same state of affairs continues. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court, claiming to count 50% of the service rendered by him before 01.10.1984 and to pay him arrears accordingly, by revising his pension. 13. In view of the order of this Court dated 12.11.2011, in W.P.Nos.53 to 56 of 2011, and the judgment in W.A.No.1618 of 2012 dated 08.10.2012 confirming the same, I have no hesitation to grant the relief sought, for by the petitioner, in this writ petition. 14. Though the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 based on the Government letter dated 30.03.2010 that the period of service rendered by the petitioner before 01.10.1984 could not be taken into account for counting pension, in view of my aforesaid conclusions, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. 14. Though the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 based on the Government letter dated 30.03.2010 that the period of service rendered by the petitioner before 01.10.1984 could not be taken into account for counting pension, in view of my aforesaid conclusions, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent, to send appropriate proposals to the first respondent, for revising pension of the petitioner, by taking into account the 50% of service rendered by him before 01.10.1984, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the first respondent is directed to pass consequential order, based on such proposal, granting revised pension, by taking into account the 50% service rendered by the petitioner, before 01.10.1984, as Rural Medical Practitioner and pay the arrears accordingly, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.