Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs C.Anbu Kennady on 9 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD).No.4941, 4942, 4943, 4944, 4945, 4948, 4949, 4952, 4953,
4955, 4956, 4958 & 4959 of 2021
Cause Title made in W.A.(MD).No.1134 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I.Campus, College Road,
Chennai. ... Appellants 1 & 2/Respondents 1 & 2
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur. ... 3rd Appellant/4th Respondent
Vs.
1.C.Anbu Kennady,
Vocational Instructor (Retired),
29/970, Chinnaya Palayam Road,
Mamambuchavadi,
Thanjavru. .. 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
2.The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements)
Accountant General Department,
Chennai – 625 018. .. 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 20.10.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.19423 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Baskaran
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R2
No Appearance for R1
(in all Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Counsel for the second respondent in
all appeals.
2.These writ appeals have been filed by the State challenging the
common order, dated 20.10.2017 in W.P.(MD).Nos.19423 and 19429 of 2017.
The writ petitions were filed by the first and second respondents praying for a
direction upon the appellants to take into account 50% of the service rendered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
by them while they were drawing consolidated pay along with regular service
for calculating the qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension
under Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and consequently, sanction
pension and other benefits.
3.The learned single Bench took note of the judgment of the
Honourable Division Bench in W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2015 etc., batch, dated
21.04.2017 and allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the State is
before us by way of these appeals.
4.The decision in the Writ Appeal (MD) No.392 of 2015 etc., batch,
dated 21.04.2017 had attained finality and very recently W.A.(MD).No.517 of
2020 filed by the State was dismissed by the judgment, dated 13.08.2020. The
operative portion of the said Judgment reads as thus:
“8. During the course of arguments, the
attention of this Court was also invited to the decision
rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Government of
Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department and others v. R.Kaliyamoorthy,
reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705, wherein, one of the issues is
relating to the counting of 50% of the service for the
purpose of terminal benefits, in the light of the proviso to
Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
paragraph 45, answered the references as follows:
“45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference
as follows:-
i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after
01.04.2003 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 06.08.2003.
(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed
prior to 01.04.2003 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.
(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 01.04.2003,
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 01.04.2003
and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 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 01.04.2003 but
were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
not be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
pension."
9. No doubt, the writ petitioner had approached
the Court with a few months delay and it is not in dispute
that but for the fixation of cut-off date, he would have been
entitled to the benefits of service rendered by him as a
Double Part Time Vocational Instructor. The learned Judge
in the impugned common order had also referred to the
above cited common judgment dated 06.04.2018, made in
W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., and having noted the fact that
persons similarly placed have been granted the benefits
and also taking note of various pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had held that the writ
petitioners are entitled to such benefits.
10. Admittedly, the fact of the case would
disclose that the petitioner had approached the Court with
a delay of three months and in the light of answering of the
references in paragraph No.45 of the above cited Full
Bench judgment [(2019) 6 CTC 705] (supra), this Court
finds no merit in this Writ Appeal. However, it is made
clear that if at all any future claim is made by any persons
who are similarly placed like that of the writ petitioners
who had worked as Single/Double Part Time Vocational
Instructors, they are not entitled for any interest on the
settlement of the retiral/terminal benefits.
11. In the result, Writ Appeal is dismissed,
subject to the above observations, confirming the the order
dated 23.07.2018, passed in W.P(MD)No.15904 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous
petition is also dismissed.”
6.In the light of the above settled legal position, we find no ground to
entertain the present appeals filed by the State.
7.Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. The order and direction
issued in the writ petition should be implemented within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
09.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM/PKN
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
TM/PKN
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1134 to 1140 of 2021
09.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
