Madras High Court

B.Thenmozhi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 September, 2022

                                                                           W.P.No.32202 of 2014


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 21.09.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

                                              W.P.No.32202 of 2014
                                                      and
                                               M.P.No.1 of 2014

                    1.B.Thenmozhi

                    2.K.Maragatha Valli                              ...Petitioners

                                                          -Vs-

                    1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                      Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
                      Finance Department,
                      Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

                    2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                      Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
                      School Education Department,
                      Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

                    3.The Director of School Education,
                      DPI Compound, College Road,
                      Chennai - 600 006.

                    4.The Joint Director (Vocational),
                      Directorate of School Education,
                      DPI Compound, College Road,
                      Chennai - 600 006.                             ...Respondents


                    1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.P.No.32202 of 2014


                    PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                    praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                    relating to the letter of the 2nd respondent having Letter No.16280/VE/2011-
                    4, dated 14.06.2012 to the 3rd respondent rejecting the request of the 3rd
                    respondent to take the services rendered by part time vocational instructors
                    for the purpose of pension and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th
                    respondent to send the proposal for computing the 50% service rendered by
                    the petitioners as part time Vocational Instructors drawing consolidated pay
                    for calculating the qualifying service for pension and the quantum of pension
                    under Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules to the 1 st and 2nd
                    respondents to enable the 1st respondent to sanction the pension to the
                    petitioners based on the said proposal from the date of retirement of the
                    petitioners and to enable the concerned authorities to disburse the pension to
                    the petitioners as and when the petitioners retire from service.

                                   For Petitioners         : Mrs.C.Uma

                                   For Respondents         : Mr.C.Sathish,
                                                             Government Advocate


                                                       ORDER

Heard Mrs.C.Uma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

Mr.C.Sathish, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32202 of 2014

2. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the respondents have

not considered 50% of their services rendered in the post of Part Time

Vocational Instructors, for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service

for pension.

3. The similar issue has already come up for consideration in various

decisions of this Court and by placing reliance on two judgments of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the Writ Petitions were allowed by

directing the respondents to count 50% of the services rendered by the

petitioners as part-time single and double part-time Vocational Instructors. In

one such decision of this Court, in the case of S.Gunasekaran and others Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department and others passed in

W.P.Nos.9979 to 9981 of 2014, dated 14.06.2018, the following order came

to be passed:-

"3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners cited the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 16th March 2015 passed in W.A.No.359 of 2015 and the order dated 21.04.2017 passed in W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.359 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32202 of 2014

2015 dated 16.03.2015 passed the following orders, which is extracted hereunder:

"13.The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion as under and granted the afore stated benefits:

"4(c) The workload not less than 20 periods in a week is a whole time employment for a day. In fact, such appointment is Full Time Appointment, but the Government of Tamil Nadu with a view to deny the benefits of Full Time employment, designated the Vocational Instructors as Double Part Time Vocational Instructor. The Government of Tamil Nadu, in order to deny regular salary and permanent status to the Part Time Vocational Instructors, has introduced the system of Double part time teacher. As per the said system, though Vocational Instructor has taken classes in the morning and evening, he will be treated as Double Part Time Vocational Instructor and not Full Time Vocational Instructor. The petitioner worked for a whole day i.e., forenoon as well as in afternoon. But, he was designated as Double part Time Vocational Instructor instead of Full Time employee. After prolonged correspondence, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.No.712 dated 28.5.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.9.1994, G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 15.7.1999 to regularise the service of the Vocational Instructor.

14.Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity, illegality of irregularity, warranting interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32202 of 2014

4.This apart, another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2014 dated 21.04.2017 passed the following orders which is extracted hereunder:

"11.Learned Additional Government Pleader after elaborately referring to the factual matrix placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of The Principal Secretary Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department and others Vs. M.Palanikani made in W.A.Nos.587 etc. batch dated 03.12.2014 and submitted that the Division Bench has allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge wherein relief was granted to count 50% of the services in the noon meal scheme.

12.Firstly, we may point out that the terms of employment of staff in the noon meal scheme are not in pari material with that of the terms of appointment of vocational instructors. This fact cannot be denied by the appellants. Furthermore, in paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the Court framed the question which has to be decided with a specific reference and a cut off date which had been fixed namely, on 01.04.2003. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners were appointed much prior to the said date and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench is factually distinguishable. Thus, we are of the considered view that the impugned order having been rendered by referring to and relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble First Bench, we find no grounds to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

5.In view of the above Judgment of two different

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32202 of 2014

Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court,the present writ petitions deserve to be considered. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the Director of School Education, Chennai, in proceedings in Ref.No.16280/VE/2011-4 dated 14.06.2012 is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for counting of 50% of service rendered by them as part-time single and double part- time vocational instructor by verifying their service records and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

4. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Benches, as relied on

by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid order, would squarely apply to

the facts of the present case and as such, the petitioners herein would also be

entitled for the relief sought for in this Writ Petition.

5. In the light of the above findings, the impugned letter of the second

respondent dated 14.06.2012 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a

direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders, by including 50% of

the services rendered by the petitioners as Part Time Vocational Instructors,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32202 of 2014

for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pension and thereby

disburse the revised pension to the petitioners, within a period of 8 weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition