Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order of the Tehsildar, seeking to quash the same as illegal, particularly insofar as it pertains to the non-regularization of the petitioner’s services for the period from 01-02-2018 to 18-03-2019, the petitioner has also sought a consequential direction for the grant of retirement benefits along with interest, the Single Judge Bench of Battu Devanand, J. held that the impugned order was illegal, unjust, and contrary to the division bench judgment of this Court, and therefore, it was liable to be quashed. Further, the Court directed the respondents to grant and disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner, for the entire period of service including the period from 01-02-2018 to 18-03-2019, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as Village Thalaiyari pursuant to the order of the Tehsildar, and he joined as Village Thalaiyari of Muthu Nagaiahapuram on 20-03-1983. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner submitted his school Transfer Certificate to the authorities concerned to establish his date of birth as 23-03-1961. However, his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 28-01-1958 in his Service Register. The petitioner contends that he came to know about this discrepancy only in 2015. Upon discovering the error, the petitioner promptly submitted a representation to the Tehsildar requesting the correction of his date of birth in the Service Register. The Tehsildar rejected the request, stating that the request for correction should have been made within five years of joining service, as the petitioner had submitted his request after a lapse of 32 years.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector. In the meantime, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer and continued in that capacity until his retirement on 30-04-2018. However, to his shock and surprise, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order in rejecting the petitioner’s appointment as Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 26-11-2018. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal, and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal, holding that the petitioner was entitled to have his date of birth corrected and to continue in service until his retirement. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of the judgment.
In compliance with the Division Bench’s judgment, the petitioner was reinstated into service, continued his service as Village Administrative Officer, and subsequently retired on 31-03-2019. After his retirement, the petitioner submitted several representations requesting the disbursement of his retirement benefits. However, there was no response from the respondents. On 19-07-2022, the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the Tehsildar to take necessary action for the disbursement of his retirement benefits.
Despite this, the Tehsildar, without considering the judgment of the Division Bench, issued an order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for retirement benefits for the period from 01-02-2018 to 18-03-2019. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that from 01-02-2018 to 18-03-2019, the petitioner was not allowed to continue in service by the respondents taking into consideration of his date of birth as 28-01-1958.
The Court opined that the petitioner cannot be faulted for not continuing in service as Village Administrative Officer during the period from 01-02-2018 to 18-03-2019, particularly in light of the fact that his date of birth was subsequently corrected pursuant to the judgment of the division bench of this Court. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner did not actually serve during the said period and is, hence, not entitled to pay under the principle of ‘no work, no pay’, and that his pay was fixed only notionally for the limited purpose of extending pensionary benefits, is wholly untenable and unsustainable in law.
Upon a comprehensive examination of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found that the petitioner was not at fault for the interruption in his service as Village Administrative Officer during the said period. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner was entitled to all consequential service benefits continuously up to the date of his retirement.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order was illegal, unjust, and contrary to the division bench judgment, and therefore, it was liable to be quashed.
[C Markandan v. District Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2281, decided on 09-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader