WP/26921/2009 of P.RAMACHANDRAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 23 December 2009

O R D E R

By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writpetition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed for a direction to therespondent to make all necessary entries in the petitioner's serviceregister and to re-fix his salary as per the recommendation of the 6[th]pay commission and grant the enhanced annual pay, and regularise theearned leave, and award the selection grade and grant the gratuityand pension and grant all consequent benefits to the petitioner withinterest and compensation for the delay.

3. According to the petitioner, he was originally appointed asJunior Assistant on 19.04.1972 in the Settlement Department under theRevenue Control of the Department. He retired from service on30.04.2004. After his retirement, the retiral benefits have not beenpaid to him till date. The reason for the non-payment of the retiralbenefits was that his service register was misplaced in the TalukOffice at Yerkaud in the year 1993. In spite of repeated requestsmade by the petitioner, the office could trace the service registeronly in 2001. But, the entries were not made in the service registerfor the reasons not known to the petitioner.

3a.ThethirdrespondentinhisproceedingsinNi.Mu.15909/04/Aa4 dated 30.04.2004 has permitted the petitioner toretire from service on superannuation. Thereafter, the thirdrespondent, by his order dated 22.12.2005 granted prorate pensionfrom May 2004 and the petitioner is receiving only the said amount ofRs.1600/- till date. It is the case of the petitioner that due tothe inaction of the respondents, the re-fixation of his salary as perthe recommendations of the pay commission, annual pay regularisationof Earned Leave awarding selection grade were not granted to him.According to the petitioner, all his efforts made by means ofrepresentations have not been responded till date and he has to spendfor the illness of his son, who is suffering from brain tumour andtaking treatment in NIMHANS Hospital at Bangalore. The petitionerhas paid Rs.1,50,000/- for the surgery of his son by mortgaging hisonly house property. The petitioner brought his plights to thenotice of the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, but they have paid least concernto his sufferings.

3b.The 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents are duty bound to follow thepension rules, which makes it mandatory by Rule 62(2)(a) that thehead of office shall go through the service book and the serviceroll, if any of the Government servants and satisfy himself as to whether the annual certificates of verification for the entireservice are recorded therein. But, even after knowing the monetaryloss and frustration caused to the petitioner by their inaction, therespondents have not come forward to grant his service benefits tilldate.

3c. The petitioner would further state that the respondentsare liable to pay interest for the due amounts and compensation tothe petitioner for non-payment of retiral benefits even after fiveyears of the date of retirement and for no fault on his part, he isfacing untold hardships. The petitioner has made representationsdated 17.06.2008 and 29.09.2008 to the 3[rd] respondent and 2[nd]respondent, respectively, to grant the Provisional DCRG interest forthe arrears amount as per the pay commission and the enhancedDearness Allowance at an early date to utilize it for his son'streatment. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated24.10.2008 to the Special Officer, Chief Minister Grievance Cell.Consequently, the second respondent, vide his proceedings inNa.Ka.No.91651/2005/K3 dated 16.12.2008 informed the petitioner thatthe arrears of pay commission will be given and the pension proposalswill be considered after making all the entries in the serviceregister. Finding no action on the part of the respondents, thepetitioner is before this court.

4. Heard Ms.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Mrs.S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate takes notice for therespondents.

5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that even though the Service Register of the petitionerwas traced in the year 2001 and a communication has been sent by theAssistant Commissioner (Excise), Salem in the year 2008, therespondents have not made entries in the Service Register of thepetitioner and the pensionary benefits were not disbursed to thepetitioner as per Rules.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits thatas there was misplacement of the Service Register and as it wastraced only in the year 2001, the respondents may require some moretime to consider the petitioner's claim. However, he would submitthat the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner'sclaim based on the communication received from the AssistantCommissioner (Excise) Salem, on 16.12.2008.

7. In this case, it is seen that the petitioner entered intothe service of the Settlement Department on 19.04.1972 and retiredfrom service on 30.04.2004. It appears that his service register wasmisplaced in the year 1993 and it was traced by the respondents onlyin 2001. Despite several efforts made by the petitioner, therespondents have not given any consideration to the grievance of the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner and finally, on 16.12.2008, a communication has been sentto the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Salem,stating that as and when entries are made in the Service Register,his request for pensionary benefits will be considered.

8. Though the petitioner has expressed his untold sufferingsin giving treatment to his son, who is suffering from brain tumourand taking treatment in NIMHANS Hospital at Bangalore, after spendingabout Rs.1,50,000/- for the surgery of his son by mortgaging his onlyhouse property, the respondents have not considered his grievance.As per Rule 62(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, it is the bounden duty ofthe respondents to grant the retirement benefits to the petitioner.But, the respondents have not done so, even though the petitioner'sService Register was traced in the year 2001. Therefore, in view ofthe above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prayersought in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to make allentries in the petitioner's Service Register and re-fix his salary asper the recommendations of the 6[th] Pay Commission and grant theenhanced annual pay and all other consequent benefits as claimed bythe petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. Nocosts.

abeTo

Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar

1. The Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (Excise)Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise Office), Salem.Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise Office), Salem.

3. The District Collector,Salem District,Salem.

4. The Accountant General (A & E) of Tamil Nadu,Office of the Accountant General,Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai 600 018.Office of the Accountant General,Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai 600 018.

5. The Tahsildar,Taluk Office,Yercaud, Salem.Taluk Office,Yercaud, Salem.

+ 1 c.c. to M/s. A. Arulmozhi, Advocate. S.R.No.71165.

+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.71753.

SSN (CO)GSK 08.01.2010.

W.P.No.26921 of 2009