A.JOHNSON Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-391
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 14,2019

A.JOHNSON Appellant
VERSUS
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent, dated 03.09.2013 and to direct the respondents to reckon the petitioner's qualifying service from 11.10.1965 to 1.10.1970 for the purpose of pension and re-fix and disburse the pension-benefits to the petitioner and also pay the differential arrears with interest.
(2.) The petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Inspector in the Department of Co-operative Audit on 11.10.1965 and it is stated that he was continuing in the service in the same Department without any break. It is admitted that the petitioner was later appointed in the post of Senior Inspector on 02.10.1970 by direct recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [TNPSC]. The source of recruitment for the post of Senior Inspector is by promotion or by direct recruitment. The petitioner joined as Senior Inspector on 14.10.1970. The petitioner was holding the post of Co-operative Audit Office at the time of his retirement on 30.10.1996. At the time of submitting the pension proposal the petitioner has also made a request to the respondents to count the period of service of the petitioner in the post of Junior Inspector from 10.11.1965 to 01.10.1970 for the purpose of pension. However, it is stated that the fourth respondent/Assistant Director of Co-operative Audit, while submitting the pension proposal had calculated only the period of 26 years and 17 days i.e., between 14.10.1970 and 31.06.1996 as qualifying service for pension. It is to be noted that the petitioner's grievance has been reported to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent stated in his communication, dated 11.06.1996 addressed to the Director of Co-operative Audit has approved the eligibility of petitioner to reckon the petitioner's service as Junior Inspector for the purpose of Pension. It appears that the fourth respondent had not sent the proposal by calculating the period in which the petitioner worked as Junior Inspector, as the Service Register available with the fourth respondent did not indicate the petitioner's employment as Junior Inspector from 11.10.1965 to 1.10.1970. The petitioner has made subsequent representations and the representations of the petitioner, dated 29.08.2008 and subsequent representations are found in the typed set filed by the petitioner.
(3.) It is seen that the second respondent, while considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.08.2008, has observed that the petitioner has raised this issue after 12 years and that the petitioner's representation cannot be considered as the particulars of the petitioner's service from 11.10.1965 to 01.10.1970 is not found in the Service Register of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the second respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner only on the following two grounds: "1.There is no service records available, indicating the employment of the petitioner during period from 11.10.1965 to 01.10.1970 and hence, the said period cannot be taken as qualifying service for the purpose of pension; 2.As per the pay bill for July-1969, it is mentioned that the petitioner had been terminated from service. It is not known whether the petitioner was terminated from service. Since the petitioner reported that he was recruited as Junior Inspector by direct recruitment, his employment cannot be treated "as terminated from service due to want of vacancies". ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.