The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Staff want strike period treated as on duty

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jul 04, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Staff want strike period treated as on duty

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, JULY 3. State Government employees and teachers are anxious to know how the Government would treat the period of their absence during the strike last year.

The employees had gone on strike from July 1 last demanding restoration of benefits, leading to mass dismissal. Following a court verdict, most of them were reinstated. The rest were taken back following an announcement by the Chief Minister.

They want the period from July 1, 2003 to February 10, 2004 (the day most of them re-entered service) be treated as `on-duty'. "So far we have not heard how the Government would treat this period," said K.Pandurangan, president, Tamil Nadu Secretariat Association.

Employees well-versed with the law governing their terms and conditions, contend that the provisions in the Fundamental Rules are clear: If an employee is exonerated of all charges, then the period he/she was under suspension/dismissal should be treated as `on-duty.'

In a letter to Ms. Jayalalithaa, the association said that in the case of employees who died during the strike period, their absence was ordered to be treated as `on-duty'.

"A submission has been made by the State Government among other things in the Apex Court that for the employees who would be reinstated in service, the period of absence will not be treated as break in service. But the treatment of period of absence up to July 24, 2003, as leave on loss of pay in respect of all employees and subsequent periods in respect of all employees who do not possess leave at credit runs counter to the above submission as leave and loss of pay will not count for the purpose of qualifying service under Pension Rules and is deducted from the qualifying service for pension," it said.

The letter said that "any discriminatory treatment in matters of treating the period from July 1, 2003 to February 10, 2004 on artificial grounds will not stand the test of law." A few secretariat employees said that the uncertainty over the orders was weighing upon many seniors who were on the verge of retirement and those who had retired recently.

Enquiries reveal that the file on the manner in which the period should be treated has been "in circulation" for nearly a month-and-a-half.

The employees allege that this was inordinately long, since the Chief Minister had waived action against them.

They alleged that some officers in charge were not keen for an early resolution to the issue.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu