A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh was hearing a case wherein the petitioner was praying for the pensionary benefits from a school where he served as B.T. Assistant in an ‘unaided’ post.
The respondent's contention, that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not a sanctioned post and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of pension and other service benefits for that period, was rejected in light of a precedent addressing the same issue.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in an unaided post in the fourth respondent institution. When the fourth respondent sought for sanction of teaching post, the petitioner's appointment was approved in one of the sanctioned posts and was paid the salary as B.T. Assistant from the date of his appointment. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had passed orders in a batch of Writ Petitions directing the Authorities to consider the request of the Minority Schools for Grant-in-Aid. Accordingly, the Government extended the staff salary grant for Private Schools.
In the year 1999, the Tamil Nadu recognized Private Schools Regulation Act was amended by the insertion of Section 14(1)(a) granting power to the Government to continue payment of aid to the private schools, which were receiving grants before the Academic Year 1991-92. Likewise, Section 14(A) was also inserted, to the effect that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any Law for the time being in force in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or any other authority, no grant shall be paid to new Private Schools and course of instruction opened after 1991-92 and to which no grant has been paid by the Government.
The petitioner thereafter resigned from the services of the fourth respondent school and joined the Government Educational Service in the Government Higher Secondary School, Chettikulam. The petitioner retired from the service on 27.11.2006 and now seeks for counting his service as B.T. Assistant in the fourth respondent school for revision of his pensionary benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition had already come up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai & 3 Others W.P.15007 of 2010 dated 29.04.2022 whereby, the past services in the unaided post were taken as pensionable service and the pensionary benefits were revised. The learned counsel submitted that though he was seeking a larger relief for all the service and monetary benefits, he submitted that he would be satisfied if a similar order is passed in the present Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not a sanctioned post and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of pension and other service benefits for that period.
Observations of the Court:
Relying on the case of S. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai & 3 Others W.P.15007 of 2010 dated 29.04.2022, the court held that though the petitioner herein had sought for a larger relief for all the service and monetary benefits, his service from the date of appointment in the unsanctioned post could be taken into account for calculating his pensionable service also.
Insofar as the objections of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner's initial services in the unsanctioned post cannot be taken as pensionable service is concerned, the very fact is that the Government themselves have ratified such an appointment, by approving the petitioner's appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant from the date of his original appointment i.e., from 03.06.1987 and hence the objections of the Additional Government Pleader stood rejected.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the service of the petitioner for the period of 03.06.1987 to 23.11.1995, as pensionable service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying years of service for grant of pension alone.
Case Title: P. Nedumaran vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Coram: Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh
Case No.: W.P. No. 17592 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Sarath Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. T. Chezhiyan (For R1-R3) and Mr. V. Sivalingam (For R4)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
