Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3433 (MAD)

T. Gopalakrishnan v. Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department

2014-09-18

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2014
Judgment : The applications submitted by the petitioners to count their earlier service as Part Time Panchayat Clerks were forwarded to the first respondent viz., the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai. However, there was no action taken by the Office of the first respondent. This made the petitioners to file these writ petitions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in W.P.(md).No.16711 of 2013, dated 19.11.2013, this Court has considered a similar issue and directed the respondents therein to count 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk and the subsequent service rendered as Full-Time regular employee, for the purpose of pension and grant pension accordingly, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Paragraph No.13 of the order reads as follows: “13. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that neither G.O.Ms.No.39 nor G.O.Ms.No.77 can override the Statutory Rule, I have to say that at the same time, the Fundamental Right which is sacrosanct as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be violated by a Statutory Rule. When the Government itself has taken a policy decision to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 to some persons, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of the petitioner alone. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in respect of those persons who retired prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.77, since right had accrued in them under G.O.Ms.No.39, the services rendered by them as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks should be taken into account and 50% of the services should be counted for the purpose of pension. This is in tune with the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a course alone will avoid discrimination.” 3. The first respondent is directed to consider the proposals submitted by the petitioners, in the light of the judgment in K.Sampath Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai and others, reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1027 and in the light of the order passed in W.P.(md).No.16711 of 2013, dated 19.11.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction. No costs.