Plea for inclusion of substitute health workers in contributory pension scheme
Substitute health workers who were recruited to the government medical college hospitals through employment exchange starting from 1991, citing Government Orders and court orders, demand their inclusion in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS).
Regarding their demands and the development that unfolded over the years for including them in the CPS, the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Department All Workers Sanitation Workers and Nursing Assistant Union have submitted a report with the State committee head Gagandeep Singh Bedi.
M. Venkatachalam, founder president of the union, narrating the events, said that starting from 1991, 384 'substitute health workers' were recruited for assisting the Group-D workers employed in the medical college hospitals in Chennai, Thanjavur, Tiruchi, Salem, Chengalpattu and Coimbatore.
Their recruitment was to discharge the work of the Group D workers when they were absent for e duty. As their positions were deemed temporary, several associations and unions demanded service regularisation, pension and leave benefits for them. Heeding to their demands, the State government, in 2007, through Government Order 149 made the 384 workers permanent with a condition that they must have completed 10 years of service by January 1, 2006.
As the workers' services were regularised only after 2003, the year notification for new pension scheme was given, the government said they would be included under CPS.
After that, G.O. 408 was issued by the State Finance Department in 2009 to include five years of service before 2007, the year when they were made permanent, to consider them as eligible for pension.
Following this the association moved the Madras High Court for including them in the old pension scheme as it was the government which failed to make them permanent for those who had joined the service even back in 1991, Mr. Venkatachalam said.
As the government went against the order, a two-judge bench of Madras HC ordered the substitute workers to be included in CPS itself, he pointed out.
But, in the aftermath of the court orders, the government again denied pension citing the CPS condition that the substitute workers have not completed 30 years of service, he said.
It was true that the workers have not fulfilled the 30 years service condition and that could not be their fault as it was the State which recruited them as temporary workers. 'If the same government has made them permanent seven to eight years ago, then they will be declared eligible,' he added.
How could they bear the burden of the government's mistake. Even after several developments which assured the 384 workers their employment rights, the State government was yet to provide them their pension, he said.
By recording the pleas of the workers and their grievances, a report had been submitted to the CPS committee with the belief that their demands would be considered for their inclusion, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Maternity leave can be included in bond period: Madras High Court
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the state government to return the educational certificates of a doctor, which were withheld on the ground that she had gone on maternity leave without completing the mandatory two-year service done by postgraduate doctors. A bench of justices G R Swaminathan and K Rajasekar observed that the 12-month maternity period should be counted as part of the bond period. The judges made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the doctor, E Krithikaa, challenging an order passed by a single judge rejecting her previous petition. During the admission to MS (General Surgery) at Thanjavur Government Medical College, Krithikaa signed a bond for the sum of Rs 40 lakh with an undertaking that upon completion of the three-year course, she would serve the government for at least two years. She was also required to submit her original certificates. After graduating in August 2019, she served as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi GH for a year and went on maternity leave. Saying that she did not complete the bonded service period, the authorities refused to return her certificates, a decision upheld by the single judge. Hearing her appeal, the division bench cited several SC judgments declaring that every woman has a fundamental right to maternity benefits. The judges referred to various provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, especially section 27, which stated that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any contract of service. Thus, the bench said the bond condition should give way to the rights conferred on women under the Act. It added that though the doctor is not a regular government employee, she is entitled to the same treatment.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
‘Maternity period has to be counted as part of bond period'
Granting relief to a doctor, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period and directed Thanjavur Medical College to return her certificates. The court was hearing an appeal filed by E. Krithikaa who obtained her MBBS degree in 2014. She was allotted a seat in MS (General Surgery) in Thanjavur Medical College for the academic year 2016-17 which was a three year course. As per the prospectus for admission to postgraduate courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges (2016-19), the candidate should sign a bond for a sum of ₹40 lakh with an undertaking that he/she would serve the State for a period of not less than two years. In addition, the candidate was required to submit the original educational certificates to the medical college. The appellant had signed the bond and also submitted her original certificates. After the appellant obtained her PG degree, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital in 2019. She reported for duty and served in the hospital for 12 months. Following her pregnancy, she went on maternity leave. Since she had served the government only for 12 months and not for 24 months of bond service, the hospital authorities declined to return her original certificates. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the condition set out in the prospectus has to give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Supreme Court declared that women have a fundamental right to benefits arising out of the situation of maternity. Maternity leave was integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that the appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the government for two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended Service Rules. The appellant was also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that she was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14. Applying the legal fiction laid down in Kavita Yadav case, the appellant must be taken to have served the government even during her maternity period. In other words, the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period, the court observed.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
T.N. government extends health insurance scheme for employees by another year
The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday (June 24, 2025) extended the New Health Insurance Scheme, 2021, for its employees, which is set to expire on June 30 this year, by another year from July 1. It will have assistance capped at ₹5 lakh for families of all insured employees and additional ₹5 lakh for specified illnesses, as per existing terms and conditions of agreement with the United India Insurance Company Limited. However, P. Frederic Engels, State coordinator of the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) Abolition Movement, said the G.O. issued by the Finance (Health Insurance) department was not clear, as it said the insurance was being extended as per 'existing' terms of conditions of agreement. 'It is not clear if employees are eligible for an additional ₹5 lakh cover during the next one year if they have exhausted the original cover within the block period of four years,' he pointed out. Mr. Engels also contended that though the scheme was supposed to extend the cashless model for approved treatments and surgeries, almost all those who have claimed health insurance could not avail cashless treatment and had to incur a sizable sum of expenses by themselves. 'If the extended health insurance cover does not provide additional cover for one year, the employees are at a loss. They would be paying for a cover which they may not be able to benefit from.' As per the 2021 scheme, the annual premium payable by the government to the company was ₹3,240 + GST per employee per annum for a block period of four years. The annual premium initially paid by the government was recovered from the employee at ₹300 per month (₹295 subscription for NHIS + ₹5 contribution for corpus fund) by deduction in monthly salary. In December 2021, the government had also extended the cover to dependent children of government employees without any age restriction with an additional premium of ₹20 + GST per family per annum. Now, on the request of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the insurance company has agreed to extend the scheme for a period of one year from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026.
