Madras High Court
D.Mary Vanitha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2025
W.P.No.22148 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.22148 of 2019 and
W.M.P.No.21417 of 2019
D.Mary Vanitha
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.
5.The Block Educational Officer,
Thiagadurgam Union, Villupuram District.
6.The Manager,
Kulandaivel Aided Middle School,
Thimmalai, Villupuram District.
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
W.P.No.22148 of 2019
7.The Accountant General,
Office of Accountant General,
318, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to allow the
petitioner under GPF Scheme based on the TPF A/c.No.651529 allotted
to the petitioner with deduction from the salary of the petitioner from
March 2018 onwards with all other consequential and attendant benefits
under old pension scheme based on the representation of the petitioner
dated 26.07.2018 and 18.09.2018 within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajalakshmi, GA for R1 to R6
Mr.L.Muralikrishnan,
Standing Counsel for R7
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to allow
the petitioner under GPF Scheme based on the TPF A/c.No.651529
allotted to the petitioner with deduction from the salary of the petitioner
from March 2018 onwards with all other consequential and attendant
benefits under old pension scheme based on the representation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
petitioner dated 26.07.2018 and 18.09.2018 within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court.
2. Heard Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs.P.Rajarajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate for R1 to R6 and
Mr.L.Muralikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for R7 and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in
the Elementary Education on 23.04.2003 and she was assigned with the
teacher provident fund No.TPF/651529 and the contribution towards
provident fund was recovered from the date of appointment and has been
recovered every month. Thereafter, the petitioner was brought under GPF
under the Tamil Nadu Pension Service Rules. The petitioner has also
availed the provident fund loan from her GPF account and the same has
been repaid also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
3.1. In view of the issuance of the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance Department dated 06.08.2003, contributory
pension scheme was introduced and the cut-off date for enforcing of the
new pension scheme was fixed as 01.04.2003. The petitioner claims that
her appointment process has been initiated even before 01.04.2003, but
there was a delay in giving appointment on 23.04.2003 and hence, she
should fall under the old pension scheme and further, the Government
Order came into force only retrospectively.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above
legal position has already been settled by the Delhi High Court in the
case of Tanaka Ram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others. The same
has been followed in the case of Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Others
Vs. Union of India, Nirajkumar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and
P.Ranjitharaj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (2022)
SCC Online SC 508.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 6
placed reliance on the Division Bench Order of this Court held in
V.Sagadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.A.No.217 of 2011 dated
19.06.2014. In the said judgment, it is held that in R.Vijayakumar Vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu, the validity of G.O.Ms.No.259 dated
06.08.2003 was challenged and the amendment was upheld. In view of
the same, it is held that the persons who have got appointment after
01.04.2003 are not entitled to the old pension scheme benefits
irrespective of the selection process started from the earlier day.
6. However, the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty reported in
1994 (5) SCC 450, has mellowed down the position by holding that the
rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be made
retrospectively so as to nullify the right vested in a person under a statute
or under the Constitution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
7. By applying the above logic to the benefit of the old pension
scheme, the Delhi High Court has held in Tanaka Ram's case (supra) that
the option to continue the old pension scheme should be extended to all
those who had been selected in the examination conducted in the year
2003, but were issued call letters only during January or February 2004.
In similar matter involving the State of Tamil Nadu, in the case of
P.Ranjitharaj (supra), it is once again held that merely because the
appointment order was issued later, the benefit available in old pension
scheme for those selectees who have got selected during the selection
process started before 01.04.2003 should not be deprived.
8. The recent judgment of this Court held in B.Vallipavai Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.8055 of 2015 dated
11.07.2023, the same position is applied and held that the petitioner
cannot be deprived of the benefit of old pension scheme, as she has
participated in the selection process which has been initiated earlier and
would not have thought that the selection would be made after
01.04.2003 and she would become ineligible for the old pension scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
Applying such an equitable consideration, the said Writ Petition was
allowed in favour of the petitioner therein.
9. In the subsequent judgment of this Court held in S.Nagarani
Vs. The Secretary to Government, Chennai and Others in
W.P.No.28353 of 2023 dated 14.12.2023 also, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in P.Ranjitha Raj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 508 has been followed.
A reference has also been made about the above judgment in the order of
the Coordinate bench held in B.Vallipavai case (supra). Consequently, it
is held that in view of the various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Delhi High Court, for the selection process which has been
initiated prior to 01.04.2003 and the process was continued in various
stages prior to 01.04.2003, the petitioners should be given with the relief
of continuing in an old pension scheme. For the sake of clarity, the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of P.Ranjitha
Raj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (2022) SCC
Online SC 508 is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
"12.In the given circumstances, when those who
are lower in order of merit to the appellants were
appointed by an order dated 24th September 2002, the
appellants have no right of say in the matter of
appointment and no justification has been tendered by
the State respondent as to why their names were
withheld for two/three years, when their names were
cleared by the Commission on 3rd September, 2002
and sent to the State Government and finally
appointments were made of the appellants on 23rd
August, 2005 and 23rd April, 2004 respectively and the
delay indeed in making appointments in the case of the
present appellants in no manner could be attributable
to them.
13. In the given circumstances, when all other
candidates who had participated along with the
appellants pursuant to advertisement dated 9th
November 2001, on the recommendations made by the
Commission were appointed on 24th September, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to the
employees who were appointed on or before 1st April,
2003."
10. The petitioner of this case also similarly placed in view of the
initiation of selection process before 01.04.2003 but the appointment
orders have been issued at a later point of time. Hence, I feel the
petitioner should not be prevented from covering under the old pension
scheme.
11. In view of the above stated reasons, this Writ Petition is
allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner under
GPF Scheme allotted to the petitioner with deduction from the salary of
the petitioner from March 2018 onwards with all other consequential and
attendant benefits under old pension scheme and pass appropriate orders
in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index : Yes /No 21.04.2025
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.
W.P.No.22148 of 2019 and
5.The Block Educational Officer,
Thiagadurgam Union, Villupuram District.
6.The Manager,
Kulandaivel Aided Middle School,
Thimmalai, Villupuram District.
7.The Accountant General,
Office of Accountant General,
318, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:26:42 pm )
