Madras High Court
S.Sankaran vs The Accountant General on 30 August, 2010
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/08/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.7510 of 2010 S.Sankaran .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement), Tamil Nadu Office @ 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. 2.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi Office @ S.H.Road, Tirunelveli Town-6. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in legal RTI/2009-10 dated 11.01.2010 and direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pension claim from 02.08.1964 and pay 18% compound interest to arrears amount. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Sankaran (Party-in-Person) ^For R.1 ... Mr.P.Gunasekaran For R.2. ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh **** :ORDER
Heard the petitioner who appeared in person and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2. The petitioner worked as a Weaving Instructor from 16.06.1954 to 01.08.1964 in Hindu Higher Elementary School, Karukuruchi. After completing 10 years, one month and 18 days, he resigned from that post and his resignation was accepted and he was allowed to retire on 01.08.1964. Thereafter, he was not granted pension and therefore, he applied for pension by making representation to the Director of School Education on 18.12.2003. The Director of School Education by his proceedings dated 05.04.2004 called for pension proposal from the second respondent, who in turn informed the first respondent and the petitioner by his proceedings dated 15.07.2004 and 04.10.2004, directed the School authorities to send pension proposal through proper channel. Nevertheless, no action has been taken and finally, the impugned order is passed by the first respondent denying the pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has resigned from the post and as per Rule 12(a) framed for the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, (for short 'the Rules') issued in G.O.Ms.No.1109, Education, dated 31.05.1958, a total qualifying service of ten years or more and discharged or retired as per rules and orders, is essential for getting pension and as the petitioner resigned his job, he is not coming within the scope of 12(a) referred to above and rejected the claim of the petitioner which is challenged in the Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that as per the decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 1808, M/s.J.K.Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills Co.Ltd, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P and others it is held that resignation also amounts to retirement and therefore, his resignation which was accepted by the authorities and allowed him to retire amounts to retirement as per Rule 12(a) and it is also proved that he worked for more than 10 years and therefore, he is entitled to pension as per the Rules.
4. The petitioner who appeared in person has also relied upon a judgment reported in 1992 (2) SLJ 31D, in the matter of Smt.Bimla Devi Vs. UOI and others wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that persons who submitted resignation are also entitled to pension.
5. On the other hand, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per the afore-said Rules, only in the case of retirement after having put in ten years of service, the person is entitled to pension and in this case, the petitioner has resigned and not retired and therefore, he is not eligible to claim pension.
6. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that even as per G.O.Ms.No.1505, dated 24.09.1968, pension was granted to one Arulmariamman who served as teacher in a non-government Schools from 1912 to 1928 who also resigned from that post before the crucial date, pension was granted after passing orders by the Government to that effect and therefore, in the absence of any Government order, the petitioner cannot claim any pension. He relied upon G.O.Ms.No.37, Education, dated 05.01.1983, wherein it has been stated that crucial dates from which pension scheme was introduced for various categories of staff in non-government educational institutions and the dates from which those who retired before the crucial dates were allowed pension and as per that, those who retire before the crucial date, namely, on 31.01.1958, they were granted pension from 01.03.1968 and the petitioner resigned the post after the crucial date and therefore, he is not eligible for pension.
7. Mr.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent submitted that as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past service and therefore, he is not eligible to claim petition.
I have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the party in person as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner served from 16.06.1954 to 01.08.1964 in the Hindu Higher Elementary School, Karukuruchi and later, Higher Secondary School at Vickramasingapuram and completed total period of service of ten years, one month and eighteen days. As per the impugned order, the pension was denied on the ground that as per the Tamil Nadu Non-Government Teachers Pension Rules, 1958 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1109 Education dated 13.05.1958 as per 12-a total qualifying service 10 years or more or discharged or retired as per Rules are eligible to claim pension and as the petitioner resigned, he is not eligible for that pension. Further, from the impugned order, it is seen that pension proposal was received by the department on 30.09.2004, after 40 years and the said proposals were returned to the department to resubmit the same duly regarding the nature of relief from service in the service Registrar so as to verify whether the basic condition stipulated in Rule 12-a has been satisfied and the proposals were received from the department stating that the petitioner had retired voluntarily and in that case, he has to put 30 years of qualifying service which the petitioner did not satisfy and therefore, the pension was not admitted in the case of the petitioner.
9. According to me, the first respondent without properly appreciating the meaning of the word 'resignation' as interpreted in the order of the Supreme Court denied the pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner resigned from the post and therefore, he is not entitled to claim pension. Further, even though he has completed ten years of service and as per Rule 12-a of the Tamil Nadu Non-Government Teachers Pensions Rules 1958, only in the case of discharge or retirement after serving for 10 years, the persons are eligible for pension.
10. It is more profitable to extract para: 8 of the judgment reported in AIR 1990 SC 1808, M/s.J.K.Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills Co.Ltd, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P and others to appreciate the facts.
"8. The meaning of term 'resign' as found in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary includes 'retirement'. Therefore, when an employee voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an act by which he voluntarily gives up his job. We are, therefore, of the opinion that such a situation would be covered by the expression 'voluntary retirement' within the meaning of Cl.(i) of Section 2 (s) of the State Act. In Santosh Gupta's case (AIR 1990 SC 1219), Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed as under (at p.1220 or AIR) "Voluntary retrenchment of a workman or the retrenchment of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation can hardly be described as termination, by the employer, of the service of a workman."
Here the word 'retrenchment' has reference to 'retirement'.)
11. Therefore, it is clear from the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a resignation will also amount to retirement and in that case, the petitioner satisfies the condition of Rule 12-a of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rule,1978. Further, it is seen from the impugned order that pensions were granted to those persons who resigned prior to 1958 without any claim for arrears prior to 1958 vide G.O.Ms.No.1015, Education, dated 05.06.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.37, Education dated 05.01.1983. Therefore, when the first respondent has granted pension to those persons who voluntarily resigned prior to 1958, the first respondent is not justified in denying the relief to a person who resigned after crucial date that too, after completing ten years of service as per Rule 12-a of the Tamil Nadu Non-government Teachers Pension Rules,1958.
12. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Government has to pass an order for granting pension, in the case of the petitioner cannot also be accepted as I have already held that the petitioner is coming within the ambit of Rule 12-a as referred to above. Therefore, there is no need to pass any Government order in this regard.
13. The contention of the second respondent that as per 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension cannot also be accepted as the pension rules came to effect only in 1978, whereas, the petitioner resigned the job way back in 1964 and at that time, nobody would not have thought of passing such rules.
14. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has satisfied the Rule 12-a of the Rules stated above and therefore, he is entitled to pension for the service rendered by him. Hence, the first respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pension within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the first respondent has to pay interest at the rate of 12% from 30.09.2004 i.e. the date on which the pension proposal was received in their office.
15. With the above directions and observations, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.
ssm To
1.The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2.The Regional Director of Industrial Training Institute, K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007.
3.The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Madurai Road, Theni, Theni District.