Madras High Court
K.Natarajan vs The District Educational Officer on 8 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
W.P.No.18263 of 2012
K.Natarajan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Educational Officer
The District Educational Office,
Pollachi.
2. The Secretary,
Central Higher Secondary School
A.Nagar, Pollachi. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.4275/A3/2010 dated 25.10.2011 quash the
same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay pension for the service
rendered by the petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : S.Ravikumar,
Special Government Pleader,
For R1 & R2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the first
respondent in Na.Ka.No.4275/A3/2010, dated 25.10.2011, quash the same and
to consequently, direct the first respondent to pay pension for the service
rendered by the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, he was working as Drawing Master in
Central Higher Secondary School, A. Nagore from 1953-1967 and he resigned
his job and accordingly, he was relieved from service on 02.06.1967. He
applied for pensionary benefit in the year 1999 which was refused on the
ground that he was ineligible as per letter No.N.Dis.3271/A3/2000, dated
09.06.2000 of the District Education Officer, Pollachi.
3. Further, according to the petitioner, he addressed a representation
dated 25.07.2011 to the respondents seeking grant of pension which has been
rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4275/A3/2010,
dated 25.10.2011 and hence, this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention,
has placed reliance on the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by a learned single
Judge of the Madurai Bench of this Court in S.Sankaran Vs The Accountant
General and another in W.P(MD).No.7510 of 2010.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that this matter is covered by the judgement dated
27.03.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1793 of 2018
in which it has been held that the petitioner therein is not entitled to family
pension as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The relevant
portion of the said judgment reads thus:-
" 7. That apart, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978,
expressly deprives pension to a Government Servant, who resigns from
service. The said rule reads as follows:-
"Forfeiture of service on resignation:- (1) Resignation
from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service.
Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture
of past service if it has been submitted to take up with
proper permission, another appointment, whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temporary or permanent, under the Government where
service qualifies.
(2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the
proviso to sub-rule (1) due to the two appointments being at
different stations, not exceeding the joining time
permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by
grant of leave of any kind due to the Government Servant
on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent
to which the period is not covered by leave due to the
Government Servant."
This position of law has been reiterated by the Division
Bench of this Court in A.I. Agnel Ilangovan -vs- The
Government of Tamil Nadu [(2016) 3 MLJ 839] following
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Union of India -vs- Braj Nandan Singh [(2005) 8 SCC
325]. When the husband of the Appellant was not entitled to
pension, the question of granting family pension to the
Appellant, does not arise.
8. On a perusal of the decisions of this Court in
Government of Tamil Nadu -vs- S.V. Paul Jeyaraj [(2001) 3 MLJ
430] and M. Subbiah -vs- Accountant General (Order dated
19.09.2014 in W.P. No. 14732 of 2013) and G.O. Ms. No. 37,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Department of Education Science and Technology dated
05.01.1983 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, relied by the
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, we find that the same does not
have any relevance to the claim made in this appeal.
9. As we do not find any merits in the Writ Appeal, the
same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs."
6. The learned Special Government Pleader also relied on another order
dated 10.07.2023 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.19725 of 2010
and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:-
"8. As it has been categorically held by this Court
in Agnel Ilangovan's case that, an employee, who has
resigned from service, is not entitled to any terminal
benefits or pension and that, when the said decision has
been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, this Court
is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner
herein. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader,
since the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of pension or
not, is covered by the aforesaid two judgments of this Court. Hence, the
impugned order dated 25.10.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
pension does not warrant interference.
8. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed as
being devoid of merits. No costs.
08.06.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
kmm
To
1. The District Educational Officer
The District Educational Office,
Pollachi.
2. The Secretary,
Central Higher Secondary School
A.Nagar, Pollachi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm
W.P.No.18263 of 2012
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
