Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs V.P.Chandru on 13 June, 2022
W.A.No.664 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.664 of 2022
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Town and Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. .. Appellants
Vs
1.V.P.Chandru
2.The Accountant General
(Accounts & Entitlement),
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018 .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 17.02.2020 made in W.P.No.10211 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for R1
No appearance for R2
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
17.02.2020 recorded on W.P.No.10211 of 2013. This appeal is by the
respondent / State Authorities.
2. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant
has submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the service and
was not entitled to pension under the service rules and the direction by
learned Single Judge to grant pension is unsustainable and therefore
this appeal be allowed. Attention of the Court is also invited to the
satisfaction recorded by learned Single Judge in para : 7 where the
case of the State is accepted on facts, however it is submitted that it is
only on the proposition of some judgment of the Supreme Court of
India which was not applicable in the facts of the case, ultimately relief
is granted. Learned Additional Government Pleader has also relied on
the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Reserve
Bank of India and another v Cecil Dennis Solomon and another
reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461 and (ii) Bses Yamuma Power Limited v
Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and another reported in (2020) 3 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
346 to contend that the proposition of law referred by learned Single
Judge is not the good law, for the case on hand. It is submitted that
this appeal be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent /
original writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had put in
more than ten years of service and therefore he was entitled to
pension because the end of service after ten years is to be treated as
voluntary retirement, if the concerned employee has not crossed the
age of superannuation. It is submitted that learned Single Judge can
not be said to have committed any error while granting that relief and
therefore no interference be made by this Court. Learned advocate for
the respondent / writ petitioner has relied on the following decisions (i)
Tmt.M.K.Sivakami v The Principal District Judge and others recorded
on W.P.No. 30277 of 2016 dated 05.04.2017, (ii)K.Supriya v Union of
India and others recorded on W.P.No.13189 of 2015 dated
14.06.2017, (iii) N.V.Selvaraj v The Director of Technical Education
reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 4843 and (iv) The State of Tamil Nadu and
another v M.Dhinakaran (Died) and others reported in CDJ 2019 MHC
495 to support his case. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as
under:-
4.1 The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had joined the
service as Surveyor in the Town and Planning Department on
27.11.1978. He had resigned from service with effect from
28.02.1991. He had put in 12 years 03 months and 04 days of service
at the time of his resignation. His date of birth was 01.06.1956 and
therefore on the date of resignation he was aged less than 35 years.
4.2 The writ petitioner was working in Town and Country
Planning Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. The service
conditions of the employees of the State of Tamil Nadu, more
particularly of this Department are governed by the statutory rules
called “The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978”. The entitlement of
pension is regulated by said set of rules which is statutory in nature.
Rule 56(3)(a) of the Rules, as it stood then, reads as under:-
“A Government servant who has attained the age
of fifty-years or who has completed twenty years
of qualifying service may retire from service by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
giving notice of not less than three months in
writing direct to the appointing authority with a
copy marked to his immediate superior officer for
information before giving such notice, he may
satisfy himself by means of reference to such
authority that he has completed the required
number of years of qualifying service.”
Rule 41 of the Rules, reads as under:-
“A member of a service shall if he resigns his
appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered
by him in the particular post held by him at the
time of resignation but all his previous service
under the Government.”
4.3 Thus, there is two fold adversity against the writ petitioner.
There is specific rule in the form of Rule 41 that in the event of his
resignation, and in this case it is the resignation, earlier service would
stand forfeited. The petitioner could not have claimed the pension.
Further Rule 56(3)(a) stipulates, when voluntary retirement could have
been opted. It is after completion of 20 years of service. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
had not met with that condition as well. Therefore, on both the
grounds this Court arrives at the conclusion that the denial of pension
by the State Authorities way back in the year 1992 could not be said to
be illegal in any manner. There could not have been any interference
in the said decision.
4.4 There are additional factors which shall weigh against the
writ petitioner. Though pension was denied in the year 1992, with
some representations after more than one and half a decade, the stale
claim was attempted to be revived by earning rejection of his claim
once more. Writ petition was filed in the year 2013. The same is
allowed in the year 2020. The direction by learned Single Judge would
entail financial burden on the State for three decades. We find that,
this was not the case where there was either any necessity or even
any scope to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
4.5 There are still additional factors which would weigh in
favour of the appellant. The case of the respondent (writ petition) was
not accepted on facts, as reflected in para : 7 of the order. The said
paragraph reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
“7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and analysing the submissions made by both
the parties, there is no dispute that the writ
petitioner had resigned from service on completion
of twelve years of service in the department. But,
the writ petitioner had relied upon the G.O. No. 37
issued by the Education Department, dated
05.01.1983. As rightly stated in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid
Government Order was passed in favour of the
Teachers who resigned in Government aided
school. It is further clarified in the said G.O that
the same shall not be taken a precedent for
Government Employees/Teachers in Government
Schools. Therefore, the said argument of the
petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court on this
aspect.”
4.6 We note the above finding of learned Single Judge, with
affirmation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
4.7 Having held as above, we further note that immediately
thereafter, learned Single Judge has considered it proper to grant relief
to the writ petitioner on the basis of some decisions of the Supreme
Court reference to which in paras : 8 & 9 i.e., AIR 1990 SC 1808 and
AIR 1990 SC 1219. We find that these two judgments can not be
applied in the facts of this case nor the same lays down law how the
case like the one on hand can be regulated. We find that, the
satisfaction recorded in the order under challenge in para : 10 is
unsustainable and therefore the same needs to be interfered with. At
this juncture, we note that, so far proposition of law is concerned, we
find that, it is decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Reserve Bank of India (supra) which will be applicable with full force in
the facts of this case. We find that the reference to the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in AIR 1990 SC 1219, on the face of the
decision of the Supreme Court of the year 2004 is an error apparent
on the face of record which may call for interference in this intra-court
appeal. We note that, the order of learned Single Judge was already
stayed by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 22.03.2022.
4.8 Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that
compassionate pension can also be considered. We find that, this is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
not the case where the discretion can be exercised to grant even
compassionate pension. This argument is therefore rejected. So far the
authorities relied on behalf of the writ petitioners are concerned, the
same shall not have any applicability, more particularly on the face of
the decision of the Supreme Court of India referred above.
4.9 In totality, we find that this appeal needs to be allowed by
setting aside the order of learned Single Judge.
5. In view of above, the following order is passed.
5.1 This appeal is allowed.
5.2 The impugned order dated 17.02.2020 recorded on
W.P.No.10211 of 2013 is set aside.
5.3 No costs. C.M.P.No.4588 of 2022 would not survive.
(P.U., J) (V.B.S., J)
13.06.2022
Index:Yes
ssm/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
To:
The Accountant General
(Accounts & Entitlement),
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.664 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ssm
W.A.No.664 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
