Absence before permitted rejoining counts as qualifying pension service when removal is set aside.

The appellant, an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, proceeded on leave from 12 February 1993, citing the need to attend to his newborn child.

The Government permitted him to rejoin duty by letter dated 8 August 1997; he joined and thereafter continued on leave.

His removal from service, effective 28 April 2005, was later modified by the Writ Court to compulsory retirement, and the Government implemented that order.

Although terminal and pensionary benefits were settled, the period of absence was treated as non-qualifying service.

The appellant’s writ petition seeking recognition of that period was dismissed, prompting this appeal.

1. Whether the period from 12 February 1993 to 8 August 1997 should be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, given that the removal order was set aside and the appellant had been permitted to rejoin duty.

2. Whether the period from 9 August 1997 until the appellant’s retirement should also be counted as qualifying service.

Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 governs whether periods of leave count as qualifying service.

Its proviso permits extraordinary leave other than leave granted on medical certificate to count as qualifying service in specified circumstances, including inability to join or rejoin duty due to civil commotion, pursuit of higher scientific or technical studies, or employment abroad subject to the prescribed pension contributions.

The Court applied Rule 18 to the appellant’s periods of absence; it did not rely on any cited precedent.

The Court distinguished the period before and after the appellant was permitted to rejoin.

It considered that the removal order had been set aside and replaced with compulsory retirement, and that the appellant had been permitted to join duty in 1997. In those circumstances, it held that the period from 12 February 1993 to 8 August 1997 should count as qualifying service for pensionary purposes.

By contrast, the appellant remained on leave from 9 August 1997 until retirement; that period was not to be regularized or counted as qualifying service, and Rule 18 was applicable to it.

The claim concerning the period from 9 August 1997 until retirement was not granted.

The Court set aside the order dismissing the writ petition, and directed the respondents to calculate and pay the resulting pensionary benefits under the applicable rules within 12 weeks of receiving the order.