Madras High Court
N.Krishnamoorthi vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
N.Krishnamoorthi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State represented by
The Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 09.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Dindigul District.
4.The Chief Engineer (Agril.Engg),
Agricultural Engg Dept.,
487, Anna Salai Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Engg Department,
Trichy – 01.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
6.The Secretary,
Then Nadars' Sundara Vislakshi Vidhyasala
Higher Secondary School,
Pattiveeranpatti,
Kodaikanal Road RLY.STN,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the impugned letter dated 07.06.2019 bearing letter No.APa1/47895/2018 sent
by the fourth respondent and consequential impugned order passed by the
second respondent dated 09.08.2019 bearing Na.Ka.No.21369/V1/E3/2019 and
quash the same and directing the respondents to take the 50 % of the part time
service rendered by the petitioner i.e. from 28.06.1979 F.N. to 28.01.1987 A.N
in the sixth respondent's school along with the regular service rendered in the
4th and 5th respondent's Agriculture department from 29.01.1987 F.N to
30.06.2013 A.N for the pension benefits I.e., for the period of 30 years 02
months 16 days based on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
in W.A.No.517 of 2020 dated 13.08.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeskumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.5
Mr.S.Chinnaian for R.6
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
2.The writ petitioner joined as a part time Vocational instructor on
28.06.1979 in the sixth respondent school and rendered his service till
28.01.1987. Thereafter, he joined the service in Agricultural Department from
29.01.1987. Hence he sought to take 50% of the service rendered in the sixth
respondent school from 28.06.1979 to 28.01.1987 along with regular service
rendered in the Agricultural Department from 29.01.1987 to 30.06.2013. While
calculating his pensionary benefits, the period on service rendered by the
petitioner from 28.06.1979 to 28.01.1987 was not considered. The petitioner
had been representing to the Department for computing the said service also.
Subsequently for similarly placed individuals, it was directed that 50% of such
service shall be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits.
Since the petitioner has not been extended the same benefit, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Additional
Government Pleader took me through its contents. The learned Additional
Government Pleader relied on the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
Division Bench in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc batch (The Government of Tamil
Nadu & Others Vs. The Chief Educational Officer & Others). The Hon'ble
Division Bench had held that the Writ Court should shut the door and not
entertain any claim from similarly placed retired staff. The Hon'ble Division
Bench went to the extent of holding that if any such writ petition is filed, it
should be dismissed. He pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6.Though the Hon'ble Division Bench passed an order dated 06.04.2018
as stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader, subsequent benches
have taken a contra view. My attention is drawn to the order dated 13.08.2020
passed in W.A(MD)No.517 of 2020 (The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Durairaj
& another) in which it was held that while similar claims can be entertained,
interest will have to be denied. An authoritative pronouncement has come
recently on 03.03.2023 in W.A.No.2133 of 2019 etc batch (M.Velliyangiri Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu). The Hon'ble Division Bench posed a
specific issue as to whether writ petitions filed subsequent to the cutoff date can
also be entertained. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the said order read as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
“11.Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the lawful
right of the appellants/petitioners herein by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 12.09.2018 for the reason that the cut-off
date in the said G.O has been quashed in the above mentioned
writ petitions. Therefore, the objections raised by the
respondent/officials are liable to be rejected, accordingly they
are rejected. The appellants/petitioners are entitled to, for
calculating 50% of the past services, rendered by each of the
petitioner in the respective employment before they got
absorbed by bringing them under the time scale of pay
irrespective of the years of service, for the purpose of
pensionary benefits. Accordingly, this point is answered.
12.In the result, these writ appeals are allowed subject to
the above observations, setting aside the orders in all the writ
petitions mentioned above. Consequently, connected writ
petitions are allowed. The respective respondents in each of the
writ appeals/writ petitions are hereby directed, after fixing the
revised pension by taking into account the past 50% services
the revised pension arrears shall be calculated and to be
disbursed to the appellants/petitioners within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.”
A perusal of the impugned letter dated 07.06.2019 and 09.08.2019 would show
that those orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner and without
following the principles of natural justice. Hence the impugned orders are set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
aside. The case on hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.
Adopting the very same approach, the respondents are directed to take into
account 50% of the part time service of the petitioner herein. The petitioner's
pensionary benefits will be refixed accordingly. Arrears shall also be paid. But
the petitioner will not be entitled to any interest. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
7.This writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 09.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
4.The Chief Engineer (Agril.Engg),
Agricultural Engg Dept.,
487, Anna Salai Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Engg Department,
Trichy – 01.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P.(MD)No.6941 of 2023
12.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
