Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Somasekharan Nair (Deceased) on 1 October, 2021
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 2149 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil nadu,
through the Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ..Appellants
Vs.
1. Somasekharan Nair (deceased)
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
2. The Accountant General (Accounts),
Tamil Nadu, 261, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 018. (R-2 given up)
3. S. Indirabaai Amma
4. I.S. Anitha
5. I.S. Prameelakumari
6. S.I. Harikumar
(R3 to R6 substituted as LRs of the
deceased 1st respondent vide order of
court dated 08.06.2015 in M.P. No.1
of 2015 in W.A.SR No.16377 of
2014.) ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 08.07.2010 passed in
W.P. No. 17949 of 2001.
For Appellants :: Mr.R. Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.K. Tippu Sultan,
Govt. Advocate
For Respondents ::
M/s.J. Anandhavalli
G. Sumithra
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge giving the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 52 School
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
Education (D2) Department dated 11.01.2003 to the writ petitioner by
directing the appellants to redo the calculation of pension to the 1st
respondent herein/writ petitioner by taking his service upto 60 years and
pay the arrears, if any, within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order and also to grant appropriate increment while doing
the said exercise.
2. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the writ
petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher under P.S.S. Scheme from
08.06.1955 before the reorganization of the Travancore-Cochin Government
(01.11.1956) and he retired at the age of 58 years. According to the
appellants, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 52 School Education
(D2) Department dated 11.01.2003 wherein the pensionary benefits were
decided to be extended to those who had joined the service prior to the cut
off date i.e., 01.11.1956 and even the writ petitioner had admitted that he
became a teacher after training only on 07.04.1959. Hence, he would not be
entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. According to the learned Additional
Advocate General, when it is the case of the writ petitioner that he had
obtained the qualification only on a subsequent date and not before the cut-
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
off date, eventhough he had joined the service on 08.06.1955, the abovesaid
G.O. will not be applicable to him and the untrained period cannot be taken
into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
3. Heard both parties.
4. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms. No.52 School Education (D1)
Department dated 11.01.2003 is extracted hereunder:
“5. MH;e;j ghprPyidf;F gpd;dh; Kd;dhs;
jpUth';Th; bfhr;rpd; rk!;jhdj;jpd; fPH; ,a';fpte;j
muR cjtp bgWk; jdpahh; gs;spfspy; 1/11/56f;F Kd;dh;
gzpapy; nrh;e;J P.S.S. jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; (Private Secondary
School Scheme) bjhlh;e;J 60 taJtiu gzpg[hpe;J
gzpapypUe;J Xa;t[bgw;w muRjtp bgWk; jdpahh;
bjhlf;f- eLepiy – cah;epiy -nky; epiygs;sp
Mrphpah;fSf;F mth;fs; 58 taJf;Fg; gpd;dh; 60 taJ
tiu gzpg[hpe;j 2 Mz;L gzpf;fhyj;ij kW
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
epakdkhff; (reemployment) bfhs;shky; mth;fsJ Xa;t[
bgWk; tajpid 60 Mff; bfhz;L mjw;Fz;lhd
midj;J Xa;t[ fhyg;gyd;fisa[k; mth;fSf;F tH';f
mDkjp mspj;J muR MizapLfpwJ/@
A reading of the same would make it very clear that the Government had
issued the said order to extend the retirement benefits to those teachers, who
worked before 01.11.1956 under the P.S.S. Scheme and it had also decided
to grant the retirement benefits to those teachers who continued to work
beyond 58 years till the age of 60 years, taking their age of retirement as 60
years and not as a re-employment for the period of 2 years. The learned
Single Judge, relying upon earlier orders passed by this Court, was right in
holding that the entire period of service should be taken into account for the
purpose of pension in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 52 dated 11.01.2003.
Paragraph No.2 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is extracted
for useful reference:
“2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has brought to the notice of this Court similar orders passed by
this Court in W.P. No. 2154 of 2001 dated 06.02.2001, in W.P.
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 543 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
No. 17529 of 2000 dated 23.01.2001 and in W.P. No. 7621 of
2002 dated 11.12.2009. In all those cases, this Court has held
that the entire period of service should be taken into account
for the purpose of pension. As a matter of fact, the
Government has also considered the same and has issued G.O.
Standing No. 52 School Education dated 11.04.2003”
5. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal
and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 01.10.2021
W.A.No. 543 of 2021
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
