C.D. Devasenan vs The Secretary to Government, Finance Department and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the first respondent dated 12.03.2002 and the consequential

order of the second respondent dated 04.07.2002 and also pray for a direction against the respondents to grant pensionary benefits in the revised

scale of pay in the cadre of Time Keeper Grade I with effect from 01.04.1987.

Under the impugned order dated 12.03.2002, the Government has considered the representation of the petitioner and passed orders stating that

as per G.O. Ms. No. 575, Industries Department, dated 04.05.1976, he was absorbed as Time Keeper Grade II in TANSI with effect from 0

4.05.1976 and not as a Time Keeper Grade I. In these circumstances, the request of the petitioner that he should be paid the pensionary benefits

by treating him as Time Keeper Grade I was not considered in his favour.

The learned counsel for the petitioner basing reliance upon G.O. Ms. No. 162, Industries Department, dated 21.1.1971 states that the said

G.O. which supersedes the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 1571 dated 16.12.1969 gives the following protection:-

All employees, whatever their category, who are borne on the establishment of Directorate of Industries and Commerce and who are on

deputation to the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation, whether they be regular employees, approved probationers, probationers or

temporary employees, will have the full protection, of their individual rights in the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation which they would have

enjoyed had they continued to serve in the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The staff will however not have the rights of seniority and promotion in the parent department viz. Industries and Commerce Department and

will have to sever their connection with the parent department with regard to seniority and promotion.

According to the learned counsel, when once such protection was given, the petitioner was appointed as a Time Keeper Grade II in the

department of Industries and Commerce on 28.11.1960 and was subsequently transferred by way of deputation to the fourth respondent in 1974

along with 637 employees and was subsequently absorbed on 04.05.1976 . According to the petitioner, the TANSI has promoted him as Time

Keeper Grade I on 10.06.1975. Ultimately, the petitioner has opted for voluntary retirement and relieved from service on 31.03.1987. Therefore,

according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when once the fourth respondent has promoted him as Time Keeper Grade I, by virtue of the

protection given under the said G.O. dated 21.01.1971, it should be taken that the promotion given by the TANSI namely the fourth respondent

to the petitioner as Time Keeper Grade I should also be protected.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has taken me to the original G.O.Ms. No.

575, Industries Department, dated 04.05.1975, under which the petitioner''s services in the TANSI, namely the fourth respondent, were absorbed

in that G.O. which also states about the job protection. In the Annexure it categorically shows that, in the list of Time Keeper opted to TANSI,

number 15, the petitioner, was holding the post of Time Keeper Grade II in the Government and was also taken to the TANSI as Time keeper

Grade II, that was, on the date of absorption viz., 0 4.05.1976. When this order of the Government remains unchallenged, I do not agree with the

learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the reference in the G.O. the petitioner should be treated as Time Keeper Grade I. Admittedly, the

fourth respondent is not having a pension scheme. Merely by taking the order of promotion of the petitioner by the fourth respondent as Time

Keeper Grade I on 10.06.1975, it cannot be stated that the respondents 1 to 3 should protect him as Time Keeper Grade I. There is absolutely

nothing on record to show that as long as the petitioner was serving with the respondents 1 to 3, he was holding the post as Time Keeper Grade

II. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner now to state that he should be protected in a post to which the Government is not a party,

especially it is so, when G.O.Ms. No. 575 dated 04.05.1976 in which the petitioner who is shown as holding Time Keeper Grade II in

Government was transferred in the same category as a Time Keeper Grade II in TANSI also and that G.O. remains unchallenged and it becomes

final.

It is relevant to point out at this point of time that even G.O. Ms. No. 575 dated 04.05.1976, in which the petitioner is shown as Time Keeper

Grade II, it is clearly stated that after the petitioner and persons like him were absorbed in the fourth respondent, the relationship between the

respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner has severed and the entire responsibility only goes to the TANSI. Inasmuch as the G.O. is very categorical, I

do not see any reason in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is absolutely no liability on the part of the

Government to treat the petitioner as Time Keeper Grade I for the purpose of paying pension.

For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.