Madras High Court
T.V.Usha Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 September, 2021
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
T.V.Usha Rani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai Education District,
Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
Order of the Principal Accountant General,
AG's Office Complex,
361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders for
counting 50% of service rendered by the petitioner as Part Time
Vocational Instructor from 04.09.1991 to 08.12.1999 towards
pensionable service and consequently revise the retirement benefits
including regular pension payable to the petitioner from the date of
retirement on 30.05.2017 with all consequential and other attendant
benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated
12.09.2018, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner
dated 21.07.2020 in the light of various orders passed by this Hon'ble
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents :
For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Vocational Teacher in
the year 1991 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were
regularized with effect from 08.12.1999. The petitioner has now retired
from service on 30.05.2017.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for
the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education (SE7-1) Department
dated 12.09.2018, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
of this Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department,
Chennai and others Vs K.Pachaiyappan and others, passed in
W.A.Nos.882 of 2017 etc batch dated 06.04.2018.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the
aforesaid order it has been made clear that the benefit is to be given only
to those persons who had filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).Nos.22785 of
2019 etc batch in the case of D.Ramachandran Vs The State of Tamil
Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department,
Chennai and others, dated 05.11.2019, similar benefit was extended to a
person who was similarly placed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education
(SE7-1) Department dated 12.09.2018, wherein, 50% of the services
rendered earlier has to be considered for computing the terminal benefits
and pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
5. Appearing on behalf of the first to third respondents, the learned
Government Advocate submits that this writ petition is devoid of merits
in view of the fact that there is a restriction in the decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the above case. He specifically draws
attention to Paragraph 15(ii) which reads as under:-
“15. (i) ....
(ii) The above said benefit shall be extended
only to the respondents in these writ appeals and for the
persons similarly situated like that of the respondents
herein, whose cases are pending before this Court. Thus
it is made clear that the above said benefit shall not be
extended to any other future cases that may be filed on
this account, on the ground of delay and latches, since all
along they have not come up before this Court and
remained as fence-sitters. It is also needless to point out
that allowing such cases would amount to opening the
pandora's box, touching upon the financial implications
of the State.”
He further submits that the representation of the petitioner dated
21.07.2020 is not based on the above G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education
(SE7-1) Department dated 12.09.2018. He therefore submits that the writ
petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The learned
Government Advocate further submits that the petitioner relied on certain
Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.224, Education, Science and
Technology Department dated 24.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.752,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
Education, Science and Technology Department dated 18.10.1996.
Therefore, on this count also this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned Government Advocate referred to the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court in the The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works
Department, Chennai and others Vs R.Kaliyamoorthy, passed in
W.A.Nos.158 of 2016 etc batch, dated 03.12.2019.
7. In this connection, he has drawn attention to Paragraph 46 of the
order, which reads as under:-
“46. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
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 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) (1) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules 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.”
8. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents further
submitted that G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education (SE7-1) Department
dated 12.09.2018 also does not apply to the petitioner as the petitioner
only served as a Vocational Instructor in the Middle School whereas, the
aforesaid Government Order applies to the Vocational Instructors in the
Higher Secondary Schools.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the first to third respondents and the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent. I have perused the relevant
Government Order.
10. In W.P.No.5832 of 2014 by an order dated 26.03.2014 the
learned single Judge of this Court had directed the authorities to count
50% of the part time service Vocational Instructors to be considered for
calculating the pension. There, the dispute pertained to vocational
instructors who had rendered part time service between 24.07.1979 to
11.11.1997 and had retired already. It was under these circumstances,
the order came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court.
11. After considering the various decisions of this Court rendered
earlier including that of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court, this Court ultimately held as follows:-
“15. In terms of the above discussions, we dispose
of the writ appeals as under:
(i) 50% of the services rendered by the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
herein, as Part Time Vocational Instructor (either as
Single Part time or Double Part Time Vocational
Instructor), shall be counted for the purpose of
computing pension and other retiral benefits.
(ii) The above said benefit shall be extended only
to the respondents in these writ appeals and for the
persons similarly situated like that of the respondents
herein, whose cases are pending before this Court. Thus
it is made clear that the above said benefit shall not be
extended to any other future cases that may be filed on
this account, on the ground of delay and latches, since all
along they have not come up before this Court and
remained as fence-sitters. It is also needless to point out
that allowing such cases would amount to opening the
pandora's box, touching upon the financial implications
of the State.”
The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 06.04.2018
was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.194, School
Education (SE7-1) Department dated 12.09.2018.
12. G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education (SE7-1) Department dated
12.09.2018 flows from an order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court which has been referred to supra. It was rendered in the context of
a similarly placed persons as the petitioner who had however retired
before 2016. In fact, those the case pertains to the persons who had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
already retired at earlier whereas, in the present case, the petitioner
retired from services only on 30.05.2017. The respondents ought to
applied the ratio to the case of the petitioner.
13. The restrictions in Paragraph 15(ii) of the said decision cannot
be applied to the petitioner as the petitioner had not retired at that point
of time and cause of action has been made at that point of time. The
petitioner retired only on 30.05.2017. Therefore, the restrictions in sub-
clause (ii) to Paragraph 15 cannot be imposed on the petitioner to state
that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.194,
School Education (SE7-1) Department dated 12.09.2018.
14. Incidentally, in a similar batch of case, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.656 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020 has
upheld the contentions of the persons who have retired after the order
was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court referred to supra.
The relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid order reads as under:-
“8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
case of the first respondent herein/writ petitioner is
similar to that of the respondents in the above writ
appeals and though it was open to the appellants/official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
respondents 1 to 4 to confer the similar benefit without
asking them to approach the Court, they were asked to
get individual orders, may be on account of financial
liability. The factual aspects pertaining to service
condition of the first respondent/writ petitioner are not
under dispute. The issue relating to delay and laches
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and
there cannot be any straight jacket formula while
considering the said issue and in the case on hand, the
same cannot be put against the first respondent/writ
petitioner in the light of the settled position of law that
persons similarly placed have to be conferred with the
same benefits without driving them to the Court.
9. In the light of the legal position being settled as
to the entitlement of the first respondent/writ petitioner,
this Court is of the considered view that in terms of the
above cited two judgments of the Division Bench of this
Court, this writ appeal deserves dismissal.
10. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed,
confirming the order, dated 02.08.2018, passed in
W.P(MD)No.17306 of 2018 and the appellants/official
respondents are directed to settle the
retiral/terminal/consequential benefits to the first
respondent/writ petitioner within a period of ten weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However,
it is made clear that the first respondent/writ petitioner is
not entitled to any interest as to the settlement/belated
settlement of the retiral/terminal/consequential benefits.
No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.”
15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed. The respondent shall implement this order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs.
24.09.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
arb
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai Education District,
Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
Order of the Principal Accountant General,
AG's Office Complex,
361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
C. SARAVANAN, J
arb
W.P.No.20499 of 2021
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
