Madras High Court
A. Shanthi vs The Secretary To Government on 2 September, 2021
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
A. Shanthi ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Tourism, Culture
& Religious Endowments,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Arts & Culture,
Tamil Valarchi Valagam,
Tamil Saalai, Halls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Principal,
Government Music College,
Tiruvaiyaru,
Tanjore District. ....Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.29527 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.R. Prem Narayan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J)
The Present appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal order of
the learned single Judge dated 29.10.2020 in W.P.No. 29527 of 2013.
2. Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice
for the respondents. By consent of both sides, this Writ Appeal is taken up
and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
3. The Appellant is the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.29527 of 2017. In
the said Writ Petition, the Appellant sought for the relief by challenging
G.O. Ms. No.88 Tourisam & Culture (CUL 1-2) Department dated
24.06.2011 and for a direction to the respondents to count the period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
service from 08.02.1999 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionery
benefits.
4. In the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge, by referring to the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors
Versus A.S.Pillai & Ors., reported in 2010 13 SCC 448 and subsequent
Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.17 of 2018 dated 03.12.2019, reported in
2019 6 CTC 705 came to the conclusion that appellant will not be entitled
to regularisation and the relief sought for cannot be granted. Challenging
the same, the Present Writ Appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the
Appellant has filed the aforesaid Writ Petition to count the period of service
rendered by her on contract basis as qualifying service for pension under the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 by allotting her GPF Account Number, but
the learned Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by misconstruing the
relief sought for as if the Appellant has claimed retrospective regularization
of her service with effect from the date of her initial appointment and hence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Mr.K.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government Advocate, who accepted
notice on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that the Appellant has
been regularised in service from 24.06.2011.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, the Appellant has not approached this Court seeking
regularisation. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the First
Respondent, it is categorically stated that the petitioner was appointed as
English Teacher in the Tamil Nadu Government Music College of
Thiruvaiyaru for the time scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800- Grade Pay. The
only contention was that the initial appointment of the Appellants was on a
contract basis and thereafter she was absorbed in the regular time scale of
pay on 24.06.2011. But the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis
that the Appellant has approached the Court for regularisation of her
services against the sanctioned post.
9. It is not in dispute that the Appellant has already been regularised
in service as early as on 24.06.2011, which is evident from reading of the
counter affidavit, especially paragraph 13. In the Writ Petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
Appellant, no where sought for regularisation of her services and she
wanted her past contract services to be counted for pensionary benefits.
Therefore, finding much force in the contention of the Appellant, we are of
the view that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2020 is
liable to be set aside on that score.
10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The order passed in
W.P.No.29527 of 2013 dated 29.10.2020 is set aside and the Appellant is
entitled to the relief as sought for in the Writ Petition. The Respondents are
directed to count the period of service from 08.02.1999 as qualifying service
for the purpose of pensionery benefits, by including the name of the
petitioner in the Old Pension Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
1978, allot a General Provident Fund Account number to her. The entire
exercise has to be completed within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [A.A.N., J]
02.09.2021
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/no
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Tourism, Culture
& Religious Endowments,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Arts & Culture,
Tamil Valarchi Valagam,
Tamil Saalai, Halls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Principal,
Government Music College,
Tiruvaiyaru,
Tanjore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J
and
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J
arr
W.A.No. 2164 of 2021
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
