VEERASWAMI

1. The appellant was an executive Officer when he reached his superannuation on 16th January 1959. At the recommendation of the Board of trustees of Sri Subrahmaniaswami devastanam, Tiruchendur, where he was serving as executive officer, the Government by G.O. Rt. No. 25, Revenue, dated 16th January 1959, permitted his re-employment for a period of one year from 17th January 1959. In doing so, the Government has expressly stated that it exercised its powers conferred by rule 21 in part 1 of the Rules frame d under S. 100(2)(p) and (x)(ii) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 8 1951. The order communicated to the appellant by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, stated:Continue service, orders follow, inform Periyanayagam. The appellant served for one year and then retired. His request for pension was refused. No reasons were given by the Government except the bald statement that pension could not be granted. Kailasam, J. declined to interfere and dismissed the a ppellants petition.

2. There is no controvery that the appellant was a Government servant as on 16th January 1959 in terms of S. 12(1)of Madras Act XXII of 1959, which came into force on 1st January 1960. The appellant claimed pension on the basis that he continued to serve Government as a Government servant and retired only from 17th January 1960, and that being the case he was entitled to pension as provided by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. S. 12(1) says that Executive Officers of religious institutions employed for the purposes of the Act shall be servants of the Government, and their salaries, allowances pensions and other remunerations shall be paid in the first instance out of the Consolidated fund of the State. As provided by S. 12(2)(c)(i), for the purpose of pension or other remuneration payable to an Executive officer serving immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act and retiring after that date, the Government may take into account the service of such officer before that date, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. It is clear, therefore, that if the appellant as an Executive Officer served Government immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act, namely, 1st January 1960, he would not only be entitled to pension, but the Government computing the pension should take into account the service of such officer before that date, subject of course, to the conditions prescribed by the rules. The only rule to which our attention was Invited is rule 4, which is to the effect that every Executive Officer, who was serving immediately before 1st January 1960, and who retired after that date after having put in qualifying service for the purposes of pension shall be eligible with effect from the date of his retirement from service of the Government for pension under the Civil Service Regulations, or pension and gratuity under the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules 1960, as in the case of other civil servants as if he entered the service of the Government on the date of his first appointment as such Executive Officer.

3. In view of the statutory provisions and the rules, the crucial question to consider is whether the appellant was a Government servant who served the Government as such on the date of the commencement of the Act and retired after that date. The contention for the State is that the appellant was but re-employed, as was stated specifically in the order of the Government aforesaid, and that being the case, he could not have been considered as serving the Government on the date the Act came into force and retired after that date. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention. The power under R. 21 above referred to is one for retention of service. The Rule itself contains indication that this was the intention. R. 21, no doubt, begins by saying that the date of compulsory retirement of an Executive Officer shall be the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. Having said that, the same rule provides for retention of an Executive Officers service after that date, if that was necessary in public interest. The rule further clarifies that such an order of retention would be one of extension of service. There can be no extension of service in the case of superannuation having already taken effect. Re-employment, of course, is a different thing which would not ensure continuity. The expressions extention and retention point to the fact that what was intended by the rule is continuity of service without a break, and that is why the rule prescribes another ceiling for superannuation, namely, 60 years subject, of course, to the condition that each extension shall not be for more than a year. We are therefore; of the opinion that except the fact that Government in their order have stated that the appellant was re-employed, inasmuch as it was done under the power conferred by S. 21, there can be no doubt that what was done in the case of the appellant was retention of his service, and therefore, there was continuity of his service or extension of his service. That being the case, the appellant was a Government servant on 1st January 1960, and he retired on 17th January 1960. That means he fulfils the requirements of S. 12(2)(c)(1), and also R. 21, and R. 4, we have above referred to.

4. It follows that the appellant is entitled to pension and gratuity. The case of the appellant in W.A. 211 of 1968 is similar. He too will be entitled to pension and gratuity.

5. The appeals are allowed with costs in each of them. Counsels feeRs. 100 in each.