Madras High Court
K.Vimala Devi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 October, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
K.Vimala Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pension Department),
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund,
Chennai.
4.The Joint Director,
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Hakim Ajmal Khan Road,
Chinna Chokkikulam,
Madurai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent in
proceedings number OM Number 6645/A1/2023, dated 28.08.2023 and to
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the
petitioner in the old pension scheme by adjusting the amount paid in the
contributory pension scheme.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R-1, R-2,
R-4 & R-5 : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R-3 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the Headmaster P.G Assistant
(Botany) in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Peraiyur challenging
the order passed by the fifth respondent herein on 28.08.2023 rejecting the
request of the petitioner to place her under the Old Pension Scheme.
2. The petitioner has participated in the selection process for the post of
P.G Assistant, which was conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
she was successful. She was called for certificate verification on 24.10.2002. A
provisional selection order was issued by the Teacher's Recruitment Board on
28.03.2003. However, the appointment orders were withheld awaiting whether
the U.G and P.G degree obtained by the writ petitioner are equal to the degree
of the Madras University.
3. After evaluation, the Madras University issued an equivalent
certificate on 25.03.2003 and the TRB declared the result of the writ petitioner
on 28.03.2003. However, the order of appointment was issued only on
08.04.2003, directing the writ petitioner to join duty on 02.06.2003.
4. In the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued
G.O(Ms)No.259, dated 06.08.2003, fixing the crucial date as 01.04.2003 to join
in the Old Pension Scheme. Those who have joined in service after 01.04.2003,
would cannot become a member of the Old Pension Scheme and they will be
governed by the Contributory Pension Scheme.
5. In view of the appointment order of the petitioner, dated 08.04.2003,
the petitioner was considered to have been appointed afresh only on 08.04.2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
and she was governed only by the Contributory Pension Scheme. Based upon
the said observations, the request of the writ petitioner for considering her
membership under the Old Pension Scheme was rejecting under the order
impugned in the writ petition.
6. According to the writ petitioner, she had passed the examination in the
year 2002 and she was called for a certificate verification on 24.10.2002 and all
other candidates, who participated in the same selection process were appointed
on 21.11.2002 itself. However, the result of the petitioner was withheld only for
verification of the equivalent certificate. Even the equivalent certificate was
issued by the Madras University on 25.03.2003, the Teacher's Recruitment
Board has declared the results of the writ petitioner on 28.03.2003 itself much
prior to the crucial date of 01.04.2003. There is no fault on the part of the writ
petitioner in the delay caused due to the selection process.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3176 and 3177 of
2022 (P.Ranjitharaj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others), dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
25.04.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the similar situation
has passed the order and paragraph No.13 has held as follows:
"13. In the given circumstances, when all other candidates
who had participated along with the appellants pursuant to
advertisement, dated 09.11.2001, on the recommendations made
by the Commission were appointed on 24.09.2002 including those
who are lower in the order of merit, there appears no reason for
withholding the names of the present appellants and merely
because they were appointed at a later point of time, would not
deprive them from claiming to become a member of Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to the employees who
were appointed on or before 01.04.2003."
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in
W.P.Nos.8584 of 2021 etc., (S.Sudhakar and Others Vs. The Government of
Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government and Others), dated
10.02.2023 had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
passed an order that the concerned Teacher cannot be deprived of the benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme, since the process of selection had commenced
through a notification, dated 25.05.2002. Even in the present case, the
notification has been issued on 18.08.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
9. In view of the above said facts, it is clear that the notification for
selection process was initiated on 18.08.2002 and the other candidates, who
participated in the same selection process were appointed on 21.11.2002 itself.
The result of the writ petitioner alone was withheld for verifying the
equivalence certificate from Madras University. Even in the present case, the
TRB has chosen to declare the results on 28.03.2003 before the crucial date,
namely, 01.04.2003. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner shall not be deprived of the benefits of
the Old Pension Scheme and just because the appointment order were issued
belatedly on 08.04.2003, the petitioner cannot be compelled to be a member of
the Contributory Pension Scheme.
10. In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the writ
petition is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the petitioner in
the Old Pension Scheme by adjusting the amount already paid towards the
Contributory Pension Scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
11. With the above said observation, this writ petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
11.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance (Pension Department),
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3.The Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund,
Chennai.
4.The Joint Director,
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Hakim Ajmal Khan Road,
Chinna Chokkikulam,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
BTR
W.P.(MD).No.22337 of 2023
11.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
