Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1391 (MAD)

K. R. Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu

2015-03-10

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is praying to issue a writ or Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Letter No.24799/Finance (PGC) Department / 2010-1 dated 19.07.2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to enroll the petitioner in the General Provident Fund Scheme as available prior to 01.04.2003 and allot GPF account number for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was selected for the appointment to the post of Assistant in Revenue Department by Memorandum No.7751/OTD-B2/96 dated 24.08.2001 by the fourth respondent. He was allotted to Thanjavur District. While he was waiting for posting order, the fourth respondent informed by memorandum No.5998/PSD-A3/2001 dated 14.02.2002 that the District Collector, Thanjavur surrendered the petitioner's name for want of vacancy and informed that the post and the District to which petitioner would be allotted will be informed later. 3. The petitioner made representation to the Chief Minister's Cell for posting order. The fourth respondent by his Endorsement No.7751/PSD-A1/01 dated 29.08.2012 informed the petitioner that further communication in the matter would be sent to him. 4. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5443 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 14.01.2003 in the batch of O.As directed the first respondent to give posting within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Subsequently, the fourth respondent by memorandum dated 09.07.2004 informed the petitioner that he was allotted for appointment as Assistant in Salem District. The District Collector by proceedings dated 16.07.2004, issued appointment order to the petitioner. The petitioner joined duty on 24.07.2004. 5. The petitioner made application dated 14.03.2005 for enrolling himself in General Provident Fund Scheme. The fifth respondent by letter dated 01.03.2006 informed the petitioner that the clarification has been sought for from the first respondent as to whether petitioner could be enrolled in General Provident Fund. Subsequently, there was no communication. 6. The District Collector, Salem sent proposal to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai recommending the case of the petitioner for inclusion in Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Scheme, on the ground that the petitioner was recruited and selected before 01.04.2003, the date from which the Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced. The same was forwarded to the second respondent. The same was forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent by Letter No.43582 / Pani 6(1) 07/-5 dated 11.01.2008 directed the Special commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration to follow G.O.Ms.NO.259 (Finance (Pension) Department) dated 06.08.2003. The petitioner filed a Revision dated 19.03.2008 before the second respondent stating that he was recruited and selected before 01.04.2003 and persons who are selected along with the petitioner have been provided with General Provident Fund Account number. The second petitioner by his letter dated 24.08.2009 rejected the revision petitions stating that even though, the petitioner was recruited as early as on 24.08.2001, he joined duty only after 01.04.2003. 7. The petitioner gave a representation dated 25.04.2010 for including him in the General Provident Fund account. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 19.07.2010 rejected the request of the petitioner, on the ground that the criteria for scheme is applicable to an employee is date of entry into his Government Service. Challenging the said order the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on the ground that the said impugned order is not sustainable as the petitioner's seniority was duly acknowledged in G.O.Ms.No.293 dated 14.06.2004 from the date of selection. 8. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2011, the respondents have not filed any counter. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 10. I have carefully perused the materials on record and considered the arguments of counsel for parties. 11. It is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner was selected by the fourth respondent by Memorandum dated 24.08.2001. He was allotted to Thanjavur District on 14.02.2002. Due to the post was surrendered by District Collector, he was not given appointment. After certain legal proceedings, the petitioner was allotted to Salem District by fourth respondent by Memorandum dated 16.07.2004 and the petitioner joined duty on 24.07.2004. The petitioner was selected in the year 2001 itself due to no fault of him, he was not given appointment till 16.07.2004. The persons who were selected along with the petitioner joined duty before 01.04.2003 and they were admitted in Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Account. The seniority of petitioner also restored along with the persons who were selected in the year 2001. The persons who were selected along with the petitioner joined duty before 01.04.2003 and they were admitted in Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Account. The seniority of petitioner also restored along with the persons who were selected in the year 2001. Taking into account that the petitioner was selected in the year 2001 and was allotted in Tanjavur District in the year 2002, but was given posting only on 16.07.2004 and the persons who were selected along with petitioner were admitted in Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Account, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit. 12. The impugned order of the respondent that the petitioner joined duty only on 24.07.2014 and therefore, he cannot be enrolled in the scheme is untenable and un sustainable. The petitioner ought to have given posting order in the year 2001 itself. Therefore, it is deemed that he has joined service before 01.04.2003 and is entitled to the Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Pension Account. 13. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.