Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs A.Jayanthi on 19 April, 2021
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.13422 & 13423 of 2018
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Education Officer,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Head Master,
Government High School,
Kattur – 601 603
Thiruvallur District. ... Appellants
Vs.
A.Jayanthi ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 19.06.2015 made in W.P.No.17481 of 2015.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy
Special Government Pleader
(Education)
For Respondent : Mr.R.Prem Narayanan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.)
By consent of both sides, the Writ Appeal is taken up for final
disposal.
2.The respondent is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.17481 of 2015
and she has filed the said writ petition contending among other things
that she was originally appointed as “Noon Meal Organiser” by the P.A.
to District Collector, on 29.01.1983, on consolidated basis, and she was
working in Municipality School in Cuddalore, continuously on
consolidated pay. She would further aver that the Teachers Recruitment
Board, in terms of G.O.(D) No.145, Education (Q2) Department, dated
05.06.2006, conducted a Special Recruitment Test for B.Ed. qualified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
Graduates, and since she is qualified, she participated in the said test and
came out successful and got her appointment as Tamil Pandit in the 4th
respondent school therein, and she continued to work in the said
Department till she retired on superannuation on 31.03.2010.
3.The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that she worked as
“Noon Meal Organiser” from 29.01.1983 to 05.09.2006, and half of the
service of 11 years rendered has to be taken up into account for grant of
pension under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and since her request has not
been considered, she came forward to file the said writ petition.
4.The writ petition was entertained. The learned Single Judge has
taken note of the rule position as well as the earlier decisions and has
allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order, in and by which,
her request was negatived, with consequential direction directing the
respondent to count half of the past service rendered by the writ
petitioner under Noon Meal Scheme along with regular services as
Teacher for pension, and also stipulated an outer time limit to comply
with the order. The official respondents, challenging the legality of the
said order, have filed the present Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
5.Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader
(Education), appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that, in
the light of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in
Government of Tamil Nadu v. R.Kaliyamoorthy [2019 (6) CTC 705],
the impugned order passed in the writ petition is to be set aside and the
writ appeal is to be allowed.
6.Per contra, Mr.R.Prem Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/writ petitioner, would submit that the learned Single
Judge has correctly applied the rule position as well as the earlier
decisions rendered by this Court and rightly reached a conclusion to
award the relief sought for by the writ petitioner and it cannot be faulted
with, and prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
7.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials placed before it.
8.The reference put before the Full Bench of this Court is
“Whether half of the past service rendered by Government servants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
whose appointments were regularised after 1.4.2003 can be counted for
the purpose of grant of Pension under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978 in the light of the amendments to the aforesaid
Rules vide G.O.Ms. No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated
6.8.2003 and G.O.Ms. No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated
8.2.2010”.
9.The Full Bench has answered the reference as follows :
“45.In the light of the above, we answer the
reference as follows:
(i) Those, who are freshly appointed on or after
1.4.2003 are not entitled to Pension in view of Proviso to
Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by
G.O.Ms. No.259, dated 6.8.2003.
(ii) Those Government servants/Employees
appointed prior to 1.4.2003 whether on Temporary or
Permanent basis in terms of Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get
Pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
(iii) In case, a Government Employee/servant had
also rendered service in Non-Provincialised service, or on
Consolidated pay or on Honorarium or Daily Wage basis
and if such services were regularised before 1.4.2003, half
of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose
of conferment of Pensionary benefits.
(iv) Those Government servants, who were
appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut
off date and later appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 1.4.2003
and absorbed into Regular service after 1.4.2003 will not
be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
Pension.
(v) Those Government servants, who were
appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 1.4.2003
but were absorbed in Regular service after 1.4.2003 will
not be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
Pension.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
10.Admittedly, the writ petitioner came to be appointed as Tamil
Pandit during the year 2006, which is well after the cut-off date, i.e.
01.04.2003, and in the light of the same, the writ petitioner is not entitled
to the said relief.
11.In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order, dated
19.06.2015, made in W.P.No.17481 of 2015, is set aside, and
consequently, the writ petition in W.P.No.17481 of 2015 is dismissed.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.S.N., J.) (P.R.M., J.)
19.04.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
and
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
mkn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Education Officer,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Head Master,
Government High School,
Kattur – 601 603
Thiruvallur District.
W.A.No.1671 of 2018
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
