Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Saravanakumar on 24 July, 2023
2023/MHC/3453
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1286 of 2014
and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to the Government
Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Commissioner
Department of Government Information Center
Guindy, Chennai -25
3.The Director
Directorate of School Education
D.P.I.Campus
College Road,
Chennai – 6
4.The District Educational Officer
District Educational Office
Aruppukottai 626 101 ... Appellants
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
Vs.
1.P.Saravanakumar
2.The Accountant General
Accountant General's Office (A&E)
Teynampet
Chennai – 17
3.The Secretary
SBK Higher Secondary School
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 01.09.2014 in W.P(MD).No.5807 of 2012.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Om Prakash,
Government Advocate
For R1 :Mr.M.Ramasamy
For R2 :Mr.P.Gunasekaran
For R3 : Mr.S.Bharathy
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The State has filed a Writ Appeal challenging an order passed
by the Writ Court on 01.09.2014 in W.P(MD).No.5807 of 2012.
2.The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the office of the
Accountant General on 03.04.2000 in regular scale of pay. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
Accountant General Office is a pensionable establishment and the
petitioner worked therein till February 2006 prior to which he had made
an application for employment as B.T.Assistant in S.B.K.Higher
Secondary School, Arupukkottai which is an aided School governed by
the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School
(Regulation) Act, 1973.
3.Having obtained prior permission, he was selected for the
post and appointed as B.T.Assistant. His resignation had accordingly
been accepted by the office of the Accountant General with effect from
17.02.2006, to be read as monday, 20.02.2006. The petitioner continued
his membership of the regular pension scheme governed by the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
4.While this is so, on 01.04.2003, the State introduced the
Contributory Pension Scheme, the benefit of which would be applicable
only to those employees who had joined State Government service on or
after 01.04.2003. There is no dispute in regard to the position that the
benefit of the old pension scheme would continue to those employees
who were in Government service even prior to 01.04.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
5.The Finance (Pension) Department has issued G.O.No.259,
dated 06.08.2003 and this G.O, read with clarification dated 13.04.2006
from the Revenue Department, would make it clear that those employees
who were in Central Government service prior to 01.04.2003 and joined
State Government service on 01.04.2003, would be entitled to the
benefit of the old pension scheme without attribution of a break in
service.
6.The relevant portion of letter No.92399/Pension/2005-1,
dated 13.04.2006 providing various clarifications to the applicability of
the Contributory Pension Scheme is extracted below:
Points Raised Clarification Issued
........
3. Whether employees who Employees who were in Central
were in Central Government service joints the State
Government service join Government service after 01.04.2003
the State Government without break in service can continue
service after 01.04.2003 to subscribe GPF provided the post
without break in service held in Central Government prior to
can continue to subscribe to 01.04.2003 was in regular time scale
GPF? of pay.
........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
7.An incidental argument is raised by the learned Government
Advocate, as to whether the benefit of continuity of service would be
available qua non-teaching and teaching staff as well. In our considered
view, there is no merit in this distinction sought to be made as neither
G.O.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003 nor the
clarifications carve out any such exception /exclusion in this regard.
Thus, both shifts, (i) from Central Government to State Government
service and (ii) from non-teaching staff to teaching staff would not serve
to deny the entitlement of the writ petitioner to the old pension scheme
should he be otherwise entitled to the same.
8.The main argument of the State concerns the alleged break in
service between 20.02.2006 and 31.05.2006 on account of the writ
petitioner having been employed on consolidated pay basis. According to
Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate, the employment in the
School between 20.02.2006 and 31.05.2006 was on consolidated basis. It
was only by order dated 22.09.2010 that the services of the writ
petitioner were regularised, with effect from 01.06.2006. Referring to
G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 27.06.2006, his services were brought under regular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
scale of pay. Thus, according to the State, the period between 20.02.2006
and 31.05.2006, when the petitioner was on consolidated pay, should be
taken to be a break in service disentitlement him to the benefit of the old
pension scheme.
9.Per contra, Mr.M.Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for
the writ petitioner/respondent and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel
appearing for the office of the Accountant General, would point out that
the alleged break in service, would, in fact, not tantamount to a break at
all. The appointment of the petitioner on consolidated pay was by virtue
of the State directive in G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 12.11.2003 and it cannot
be assumed that the petitioner would have been appointed on
consolidated pay even assuming that G.O.Ms.No.125 has not been issued
by the State.
10.With the issuance of G.O.No.99 on 27.06.2006, the
petitioner becomes automatically entitled for regular time scale of pay
and it is based on the aforesaid G.O that order dated 22.09.2010 was
passed wherein the petitioner was brought to regular scale of pay on and
from 01.06.2006 onwards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
11.Thus, with the issuance of G.O.No.99 dated 27.06.2006, the
petitioner becomes automatically entitled for regular pay of scale and the
elapse of three months would not, in our view, constitute a break, perse,
to disentitle the petitioner from the benefit of old pension scheme.
12.Some decisions including of the Division Bench in W.A.No.
1089 of 2016 dated 13.07.2016 have been relied on and we draw support
from the same. The writ appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed
by the writ Court. The direction at paragraph No.13 of order dated
01.09.2014 to the effect that respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 will continue the
petitioner under the erstwhile pension scheme applicable to those who,
entitled service prior to 01.04.2003 is confirmed and reiterated.
13.The applicable scheme in the present case is the Teacher's
Provident Fund Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu equivalent to
the General Provident Fund Scheme applicable to the employees who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
enter service prior to 01.04.2003. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
24.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
msa
To
1.The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai -9
2.The Commissioner
Department of Government Information Center
Guindy, Chennai -25
3.The Director
Directorate of School Education
D.P.I.Campus
College Road,
Chennai – 6
4.The District Educational Officer
District Educational Office
Aruppukottai 626 101
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1286 of 2014
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
W.A.(MD)No.1286 of 2014
and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014
Dated:
24.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
