Madras High Court
R.Blossom vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2021
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
R.Blossom ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.District Elementary Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
4.Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Minjur, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to deduct the General
Provident Fund subscription from the petitioner's salary from December,
2006 with due credit in the existing Account No.326970 so as to enable the
petitioner to come under the Old Pension Scheme.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh, AGP
ORDER
The relief sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to
deduct the General Provident Fund Subscription from the petitioner's salary
from December, 2006 with due credit in the existing Account No.326970 so
as to enable the petitioner to come under the Old Pension Scheme.
2.According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Secondary Grade
Assistant in Devasagayam Chettiyar Middle School, Madurai on 16.03.2000
and her appointment was also approved by the authorities and she was
enrolled in Teachers Provident Fund and allotted P.F. Account No.326970
and subscription was also deducted from her salary from 2000 to November
2006. While so, based on her seniority in Employment Exchange, the
petitioner was called for interview by the Teachers Recruitment Board for
the appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant. Pursuant to the
same, she participated in the selection process Consequently, she was
appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant and she joined duty on 08.12.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to enrol herself in the New Pension
Contributory Scheme from December 2006. The petitioner resisted the same
and requested to deduct subscription from her salary and credit it to GPF
account, stating that the persons selected along with her as Secondary Grade
Assistants, were directed to continue their GPF accounts and accordingly,
subscriptions are deducted from their salary. But, the respondents did not
deduct any amount towards subscription under the Old Pension Scheme or
New Pension Contributory Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner has no other
option except to approach this Court with the present writ petition for the
aforesaid relief.
3.Upon notice, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent, wherein, it is inter alia stated that the Government issued orders
that all the Government servants and teachers appointed in
Government/Aided Institutions on or after 01.04.2003 ought to have been
enrolled in CPS (New Pension Contributory Scheme) alone and since the
petitioner joined duty only in the year 2006, she has been directed to enrol
in CPS Scheme. The petitioner was selected as Secondary Grade Assistant
by Teachers Recruitment Board and joined duty on 08.12.2006 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
service rendered earlier by the petitioner in previous school upto 02.12.2006
could not be counted as break in service was not condoned by the competent
authorities and the petitioner has not obtained any such order from the
Government to count the service rendered by the petitioner. With these
averments the 4th respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, in
WP.No.13357 of 2015, this Court by order dated 26.06.2015, allowed the
said writ petition, by directing the respondents therein to continue the
petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme, the relevant passage of which, is
extracted below:
“18. As per Rule 24 of the Rules, the past service cannot
be forfeited except when a person is removed or re-employed.
Admittedly, Rule 25(1) comes to the benefit of a Government
servant for automatic condonation of break in service. I am of
the view that the conjoint reading of Rules 24 and 25 of the
Rules would make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of condonation of one day break in service.
19. In fact, in N.Baskar V. Director of Elementary
Education, reported in 2014 (8) MLJ 341, this Court, based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
the aforesaid Rules 24 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, condoned the delay of 13 days in similar circumstances.
It is relevant to extract paragraphs 7 and 9 of the said judgment
as hereunder :
"7. From the facts narrated above, it is found
that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner who
got break-in-service. It is only due to the
administrative act on the part of the second
respondent, the orders have not been issued as
informed to the petitioner by the second respondent.
The Government by a letter No.34911/Finance
(PGC) Department/2009-1 dated 30.12.2009, in
paragraph 2 of its order, has stated that intervening
period as follows:-
"2.The Government after careful
examination directs that in all cases where
an employee working under pensionable
service on relief joins a new post on a day
after the intervening Government/Public
Holidays, need not be considered as a
break, since the intervening period shall
automatically be condoned as per Rule 25
of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978."
“9. Taking note of the submissions on both
parties, I feel much force in the contention of the
petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be allowed
and the intervening period has got to be treated as
continuity of service and not as break-in-service and
the petitioner is entitled to all other benefits."
20. Taking into account the facts of the case as well as
the judgment referred to above, the impugned orders are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
quashed and the writ petition is allowed and a direction is
issued to the respondents to continue the petitioner under the
Old Pension Scheme.
21. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
Thus, the learned counsel prayed that the benefit of the aforesaid order may
be extended to this petitioner as well, by considering her representation
dated 18.01.2014.
5.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the respondent
authorities would consider the representation of the petitioner and pass
orders, on merits and also in the light of the aforesaid order cited on the side
of the petitioner.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more
particularly that earlier the petitioner was working under the Old Pension
Scheme and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
on either side, this Court directs the respondent authorities to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 18.01.2014 and pass appropriate
orders, on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the
aforesaid order dated 26.06.2015 in WP.No.13357 of 2015, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
08.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mtl
To
1.Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
mtl
3.District Elementary Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
4.Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Minjur, Thiruvallur District.
W.P.No.9748 of 2014
08.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
