Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner's husband, late Mr.Chandrakasi was working in the office of the second respondent. He was employed in the Government Service Centre for Ceramics, Virudachalam, a Government Department, formed in the year, 1969. While so, a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.463, Industries, dated 19.3.1973, had been issued by the first respondent forming a separate company, namely, the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. On 15.7.1974, the Service Centre of Ceramics was taken taken over by the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and Mr.Chandrakasi was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. Later, the Service Centre had been taken back by the Government, as per the directions issued, in G.O.Ms.No.53, Industries, dated 28.1.1988. On the winding up of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, the petitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi , who was on deputation, had been transferred, with continuity of service. However, in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.720, Industries (SIA.II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, the Government had created posts for staff and workers, who were repatriated from the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and had ordered that the services of the repatriated employees would be treated as fresh appointments.
3. It has been further stated that the petitioner's husband Mr.Chandrakasi, had died on 4.2.1990, and therefore, the petitioner had sent a letter, on 4.2.1990, to the respondent, for receiving the family pension of her deceased husband. However, a letter had been sent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner would be entitled for the family pension, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, only if the Government servant had completed not less than one year of continuous service. Since the petitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi, had not completed one year of continuous service, the petitioner was not entitled to receive the family pension. The petitioner has stated that the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled for the family pension, is arbitrary, erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, it has been stated that Mr.Chandrakasi, the husband of the petitioner, was a semi-skilled worker, appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.720, Industries (SIA-II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, with effect from 1.4.1988, making it clear that his service would only be taken as fresh service. The Service Centre for Ceramics, Virudachalam, was transferred to Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, from 15.7.1974. Before the transfer, some workers were working in the Government Service centre, as daily rated casual workers, on contingent bills (not on regular establishment). On transfer to the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, the workers were also taken by Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. They were only contingent staff, paid as contingent bills and they were absorbed in Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and covered by the Factories Act, 1948. As soon as they had joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, two wage agreements were settled between the management of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and their workers, including the petitioner. His pay and allowances were paid according to the wage agreements. While he was serving in Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, he was made a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees Provident Fund subscriptions were recovered from him, besides the contributions made by the management, for the said fund.
5. It has been further stated that all the units of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, had been closed, with effect from 31.8.1988. Only the assets of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited had been taken over by the Government. In the said Government Order issued, in respect of the said taking over, it was clearly stated that appointments of the employees would be treated as fresh appointments. Accordingly, the services of Mr.Chandrakasi, had been regularised in the post of Semi-skilled worker only from 1.4.1988, similar to the services of 33 other workers. While so, Mr.Chandrakasi had expired, on 4.2.1990. However, during the period from 1.4.1988 to 4.2.1990, he had availed extraordinary leave, on a number occasions and therefore, he had not satisfied the conditions required for the payment of family pension, since he was not in continuous service for a minimum period of one year of uninterrupted service, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. As such, the claim of the petitioner, for the payment of family pension, is devoid of merits.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. The reason for non-payment of family pension to the petitioner, in respect of her husband Mr.Chandrakasi, is due to the fact that he has not worked for a continuous minimum period of one year, between 1.4.1988 and 4.2.1990, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
7. It has also been stated by the respondents that Mr.Chandrakasi, the husband of the petitioner, was a Semi-skilled worker, appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.720, Industries (SIA.II) Department, dated 16.5.1988, with effect from 1.4.1988. At the time of his appointment it was clearly mentioned that his service would be counted as fresh service. The Service Centre for Ceramics, Virudachalam, had been transferred to the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, from 15.7.1974. Before the transfer some of the workers, who were working in the Government Service Centre, as daily rated casual workers, on contingent bills, were also taken by the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. After joining the services of Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, two wage agreements had been settled between the management of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and their workers, including the petitioner's husband, Mr.Chandrakasi. His pay and allowances were paid in accordance with the wage agreements. Later, all the Units of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited had been closed, with effect from 31.8.1988 and the Government had taken over the assets of the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited. However, in the Government Order issued by the government for taking over the Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited, it was clearly stated that the appointments of the workers would be treated as fresh appointments. Accordingly, the services of Mr.Chandrakasi had been regularised in the post of Semi-skilled worker, only from 1.4.1988. Since he had died on 4.2.1990 and as he had availed many days of extraordinary leave, the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension, as he had not been in continuous service, for a minimum period of one year, from 1.4.1988, as per Rule 49(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 17-07-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh To
1) The Principal Accountant General, State of Tamil Nadu, (Accounts and Entitlement) Tamil Nadu, Chennai
2.The Deputy Director, (Ceramics), Government Service Centre, for Ceramics, Virudachalam.
3. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner and Industries and Commerce Department, Fort St. Goerge, Madras-600 009.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh Writ Petition No.294 of 2007 17-07-2009