W.P. No.36575 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.36575 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.31447 of 2016 & 12942 of 2017 V.Kuppan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Co-operative Audit, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2. The Assistant Director of Co-operative Audit, Chennai North, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Accountant General (A & E) (Tamil Nadu) Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first Respondent in Na.Ka.No.18961/2016/A.Pa.A1, dated 31.08.2016 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second Respondent in Na.Ka.No.3372/2016/ A.Pa.A, dated 15.09.2016 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Tamilvendan, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Ms.T.S.Selvarani for R3 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.36575 of 2016 ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order issued by the first Respondent in Na.Ka.No.18961/2016/A.Pa.A1, dated 31.08.2016 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second Respondent in Na.Ka.No.3372/2016/ A.Pa.A, dated 15.09.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Junior Cooperative Inspector in Cooperative Department on 24.08.1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Cooperative Inspector / Senior Cooperative Auditor and subsequently to the post of Cooperative Audit Officer in the year 2005 and thereafter superannuated on 31.01.2014. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Government ought to have counted his service rendered under Central Government on non-provincialised post and on consolidated pay basis daily wages, by taking into account 50% of the said service. The writ petitioner relied upon the order passed by the first respondent on 21.03.2014 vide Na.Ka.No.24808/2013/mgm-1 and the relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted hereunder: (1)jdpau; kf;fs; fzf;bfLg;g[j; Jiw ,af;Feufj;jpy; gzpg[upe;j 3 tUlk; 3 khjk; 29 ehl;fspy; (22/09/1980 K/g/ Kry; 20/01/1984 gp/g/ tiu) ghu;it 5?y; fhZk; murhizf;Fl;gl;L 50% jFjpahd mtuJ gzpf;fhykhd 1 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.36575 of 2016 tUlk; 8 khj';fis Xa;t{jpaj;jpw;F fzf;fpy; bfhs;s jFjpa[ila gzpf;fhykhf fUjp Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ (2)jdpau; kf;fs; fzf;bfLg;g[j; Jiw ,af;Feufj;jpy; gzpapl';fspd; vz;zpf;if Fiwf;fg;gl;ljhy; tpLtpf;fg;gl;l fhykhd 20/01/1984 gp/g/ Kjy; Tl;Lwt[ jzpf;if Jiwapy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l 24/08/1984 K/g/ tiu 7 khjk; 4 ehl;fis jkpH;ehL Xa;t{jpa tpjpfs; 1978 tpjp 25(1)?d; go jhkhfnt bghWj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;ljhft[k; (automatically condoned) tpjp 25(3)?d; go ,g;gzpapilaPL fhyk; jFjpahd gzpf;fhykhf fUjg;glhJ vdt[k; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the same and contended that the petitioner is entitled for the said claim on the basis of the proceedings dated 30.07.2014 in Na.Ka.No.24886/2014/mgm-1. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 contended that, in view of Rule 12(4) of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for the claim and as per Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, half of the services rendered under non provincialised and consolidated pay on or after 01.01.1961 in respect of the Government employees absorbed in regular services before 01.04.2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits. In view of Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to the claim made. It is the case of the Respondents that only temporary Central 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.36575 of 2016 Government Services on regular time scale of pay can be counted along with regular Tamil Nadu Government Services as per Rule 12(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and not the services on consolidated pay under Central Government. 5. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 6. By the proceedings dated 30.07.2014 in Na.Ka.No.24886/2014 /mgm-1 and by the proceedings dated 21.03.2014 in Na.Ka.No.24808 /2013/mgm-1, the first respondent has condoned the period of interruption in service of the petitioner. However, the said orders were quashed by the Respondents vide impugned orders, dated 31.08.2016. As per Section 11(4) r/w. 12(4) of the Tamil nadu pension Rules, 1978, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension for half of the service rendered under the Central Government. Therefore, the impugned orders quashing the condonation of period of interruption in service and the subsequent orders directing the petitioner to show cause why the excess pension benefits granted to the petitioner must not be recovered is unreasonable and the 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.36575 of 2016 same is liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the claim made in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.18961/2016/A.Pa.A1, dated 31.08.2016 and Na.Ka.No.3372/2016/A.Pa.A, dated 15.09.2016 are hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes / No vum To: 1. The Director of Co-operative Audit, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2. The Assistant Director of Co-operative Audit, Chennai North, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Accountant General (A & E) (Tamil Nadu) Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. N.SENTHILKUMAR ,J., 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.36575 of 2016 vum W.P.No.36575 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.31447 of 2016 & 12942 of 2017 20.06.2025 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis