Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4018 (MAD)

R. Sankaranarayanan v. Secretary to Government

2014-10-28

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner was working as a part time Village Karnam. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 26.07.1980 of the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai. According to the petitioner, he filed an appeal before the Government and obtained interim stay of the dismissal order. 2. While so, the part time posts of Village Officers namely, Munsif and Karnam were abolished by way of Ordinance No.10/80 that came into effect from 14.11.1980. 3. The petitioner has stated that the part time Village Officers, who lost their employment with effect from 14.11.1980 due to the abolition of the posts were given pension and family pension as per G.O.Ms.No.828, Revenue (E.Spl.1) Department, dated 23.08.1996. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to disburse pensionary benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.828, Revenue Department, dated 23.08.1996. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the dismissal order passed by the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai was stayed by the Government, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.828. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has brought to my notice para 6 of the reply affidavit filed by the first respondent and has submitted that the appeals and revisions of the part time Village Officers that were pending before any authority or Government on 14.11.1980 had been abated and as such, the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.08.1980 against the dismissal order has been abated on 14.11.1980. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 26.07.1980 of the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai. According to him, the petitioner approached the Government to obtain stay of the dismissal order. Even in such cases, it is stated by the first respondent in para 6 of the reply affidavit as follows: “6. With regard to the averments made in para 6(d) of the original application it is submitted that the applicant has not produced any proof to the effect that he had approached the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai after the issue of Government stay orders issued in the Government letter No.101901 Revenue (E.1) 80-1 dated 27.10.1980. With regard to the averments made in para 6(d) of the original application it is submitted that the applicant has not produced any proof to the effect that he had approached the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai after the issue of Government stay orders issued in the Government letter No.101901 Revenue (E.1) 80-1 dated 27.10.1980. According to Rule 11(b) of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time Village Officers (Act 1981 Act No.3 of 1981) (herein after referred to as “the Act”) all the disciplinary proceedings including appeals, and revisions of the part time Village Officers pending before any authority or Government on 14.11.1980 shall abate. As such this appeal filed on 22.08.1980 against the removal from service by the applicant before the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur abated on 14.11.1980. Therefore, the removal order passed by the Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai in Rc.No.13974/77/A.1/dated 26.07.1980 holds good on 14.11.1980. Hence the applicant was not in service 14.11.1980.” Therefore, it makes it very clear that the dismissal order passed by the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai holds good and the petitioner was not in service as on 14.11.1980. The reliance placed on by the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.828 is of no use. 10. I have perused the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.828, Revenue (E.Spl.1) Department, dated 23.08.1996. G.O.Ms.No.828 provides pension and family pension benefits to the Village Officers, who lost their employment on 14.11.1980 due to Ordinance No.10/80. Admittedly the petitioner did not loose his employment due to the Ordinance and prior to the issuance of the Ordinance, he was removed from service for some delinquency by the Sub Collector, Pattukkottai. However, the said dismissal order was not challenged by the petitioner in the manner known to law. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to pension as provided under G.O.Ms.No.828, Revenue (E.Spl.1) Department, dated 23.08.1996. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.