Order dated : 13.09.2022
Writ Petition No.995 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Writ Petition No.995 of 2016
C.Sarojini Elizabeth
W/o.James Williams ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the
Principal Secretary to Government,
Educational Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600 018.
3.The Director of School Education,
Chennai - 600 006.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruppattur, NA, District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned Government letter in Ref.No.2955/Ni.Va.1(2)/2015-9
dated 22.12.2015 on the file of first respondent rejecting the petitioner's pension
claim and the initimation letter from the third respondent in reference in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Order dated : 13.09.2022
Writ Petition No.995 of 2016
Na.Ka.No.33509/R1/E2/2010 dated 28.12.2015 on the file of the third
respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to
implement the order in reference in R.No.11575/A6/95 dated 22.09.1995
sanctioning superannuation pension of Rs.375/- p.m. with effect from
07.10.1966 and gratuity of Rs.550/- as per G.O.1109, Education Department
dated 31.05.1988.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Government Advocafte [ R1, R3 & R4]
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan [R2]
*****
ORDER
The order of rejection dated 22.12.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and the consequential intimation letter issued by the third respondent dated 28.12.2015 are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was a Music Teacher employed in St.John's Girls High School, Tirunelveli and Mary Immaculate High School, Tirupathur, in North Arcot District, which was a private aided and minority institution. The petitioner served three years in St.John's Girls High School and 6 years and 2 months in Mary Immaculate High School, Tirupathur, in North Arcot District. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 Order dated : 13.09.2022 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 petitioner states that the petitioner served about 9 years and 2 months. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of pension and the said application was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7299 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.10.2014 directing the petitioner to give a detailed representation to the Government and on receipt of the representation, the Secretary to Government, Education Department, was directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Since the said application was not considered properly by the respondents, again, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24553 of 2015 seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation dated 08.05.2015 in the light of the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.7299 of 2010. Pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.24553 of 2015 directing the respondents to consider the representation, the impugned order was passed by the Government in letter dated 22.12.2015. The Government elaborately considered the merits of the case of the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that she is not eligible for pension in view of the fact that she has not completed 10 years and further, the petitioner resigned her job.
3. In this regard, the respondents have stated that the petitioner served https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 Order dated : 13.09.2022 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 about 9 years, 3 months and 14 days and she served as a temporary employee under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service Rules. It is further contended that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, to condone shortage of service for a longer period of 8 months and 16 days even though temporary services may count for calculation of pension. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, states that "resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service". Therefore, the services rendered prior to resignation could not be taken into account for calculation of pension.
4. The petitioner is now aged about 81 years. Already, she filed two writ petitions and this Court directed the authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. The Government elaborately considered the case of the petitoner with reference to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in force. The findings in the impugned order reveals that the petitioner is not eligible for pension on account of the fact that she had not completed 10 years of service and even as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 05.01.1983, the question of relaxation of rule does not arise at all.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the relevant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 Order dated : 13.09.2022 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 rule is to be relaxed for the purpose of grant of pension, more specifically, Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
6. Court cannot issue any direction to relax the rule in favour of the petitioner for grant of pension. That apart, the impugned order states that relaxation of rule does not arise at all in the case of the petitioner with reference to G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 05.01.1983. Relaxation per se cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Relaxation is an exception, which is to be exercised in exceptional cases where gross injustice is caused to a person or group of persons. However, in the present case, the scope of relaxation was also considered by the Government and the Government formed an opinion that there is no possibility of such relaxation in favour of the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner resigned her job and the services rendered prior to resignation cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of qualifying services. For all these reasons, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for grant of pension. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the reasons furnished for rejection of the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 Order dated : 13.09.2022 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 13.09.2022 Index : Yes Speaking order gm S.M.SUBRAMANIAM., J gm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 Order dated : 13.09.2022 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 Writ Petition No.995 of 2016 13.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7