Madras High Court
)The State Of Tamilnadu vs S.Mary on 16 November, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE THIRU.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.8973 of 2021
1)The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2)The Director of Primary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational officer,
Dindigul, Dindigul. ... Appellants
vs.
S.Mary ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9724 of
2020 batch cases, dated 1.9.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Addl.Govt.Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the order passed in
W.P(MD)No.9724 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020.
2.The writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein joined service as a
Vocational Instructor on 19.7.1979 and her services were regularised only
on 12.11.1997 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013.
When the pensionary benefits were extended to her, the services rendered
by her from 19.7.1979 to 11.11.1997 was not taken into account. Her
services from the date of joining till the date of regularisation was omitted
to be considered. Hence, the Mandamus was filed to count atleast 50% of
the part time services rendered by the writ petitioner along with the regular
services, for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for pension.
The learned single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment in
W.P(MD)Nos.16864 and 16926 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018
(S.Venkatachalam vs. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Department of School Education and others) and allowed the writ petition
directing the authorities to consider the period from the date of joining, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
is, from 19.7.1979 to 11.11.1997, the date of regularisation for the purpose
of calculating the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same. the above
writ appeal is preferred.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants would argue that the case of the writ petitioner cannot be
considered in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.
158/2016 etc., batch, dated 03.12.2019 (The Government of Tamil Nadu
and 2 others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy and others). He also placed reliance on
the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.882/2017 etc., batch dated
06.04.2018 (The Government of Tamil Nadu and 2 others vs. The Chief
Educational Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram and others). Though
the abovesaid Division Bench judgment is in favour of the writ petitioner,
the said judgment had given a cut off date, within which, the writ
petitioner/1st respondent does not come and therefore, he is guilty of delay
and laches. However, subsequently, the Full Bench in W.A.No.158/2016
etc., batch, dated 03.12.2019 has held 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 W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
batch 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 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(MD)No.1984 of 2021
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader though argued that the
case of the writ petitioner does not fall in any of the above mentioned
categories, he is unable to demonstrate before this Court, as to how the writ
petitioner is not entitled to the relief. It was argued that the part time
Vocational Instructors are not at all entitled to count half of the part time
services, for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service, for pension,
as the nomenclature indicates it is only a part time job. Though it is a part
time job, the writ petitioner was regularised in the year 1997 and the
services rendered prior to that, was the same even after regularisation.
Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled for the benefits of the service period
prior to regularisation to be counted in the manner prescribed. Hence, we
see no merits in the arguments of the learned Additional Government
Pleader. We do not want to interfere with the order passed by the learned
single Judge.
5.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
16.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
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)No.1984 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1984 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.8973 of 2021
DATED : 16.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
