Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs V.Revathy on 18 September, 2020
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4770 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
V.Revathy ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15925 of 2018, dated 23.07.2018.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : No appearance
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J) The respondents are the appellants and aggrieved by the common order dated 23.07.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.1910 of 2016 etc., batch cases, which includes W.P.(MD) No.15925 of 2018, filed by the respondent, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2.The matter in issue pertains to services rendered by the Vocational Instructors either as single time or part time being not taken into account for payment of Pensionary benefits instead of amendment under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
3.The learned Single Judge has studied the issue on the said batch of Writ Petitions and also taken note of the orders in W.P.(MD) No.16711 of 2013 [V.Ragavan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, School Education Department and others] as well as W.P. (MD) Nos.256 and 257 of 2015 [P.Natarajan and another v. the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, School Education Department and other] as well as various other decisions, including the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.882 of http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 2017 etc., batch [The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department and others v. K.Pachaiyappan and others] has disposed of the batch of Writ Petitions and it is relevant extract paragraph No.10 of the impugned common judgment:
"10. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are ordered and insofar as some of the writ petitions ie., W.P.(MD) Nos.15469 to 15476/2018, where rejection orders have been challenged, the said impugned orders are hereby quashed and the said writ petitions are also ordered in the terms of the said order dated 09.07.2018 by giving the following directions:
“the respective respondents in each of the writ petitions are hereby directed to take into account the 50% of the past services rendered by each of the petitioners either as Vocational Instructors or any other employment either as a Part Time / Full time / adhoc / temporary / daily wages employees before they brought in under the regular time scale of pay on permanent basis or absorption and by calculating the said 50% of their past service, pension eligibility and pension enhancement or difference of pay and pension shall be calculated and disbursed in favour of the respective petitioners. After fixing the revised pension by taking into account the past 50% services, the revised pension arrears shall be calculated and to be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall continue to receive the revised pension.”
4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that despite the fact that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.834 dated 23.09.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 15.07.1999, services of the Vocational Instructors came to regularised, but their part time services were not taken into account and the said fact has been taken note of by the Division Bench, while disposing of W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., batch. In compliance of the said order, the School Education Department in G.O.Ms.No.194 School Education (Pa.Ka.7-1) Department dated 12.09.2018 also passed orders fixing cut of date for availing the benefits granted in W.A.No.882 of 2017 and as such the respondent cannot derive the benefit of the said judgment and prays for interference.
5.It is relevant to extract paragraph No.15 of the judgment in the Writ Appeal No.882 of 2017 etc., batch (cited supra):
“15.In terms of the above discussions, we dispose of the writ appeals as under:-
(i) 50% of the services rendered by the respondents herein, as Part Time Vocational Instructors (either as Single Part http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 Time or Double Part Time Vocational Instructors), shall be counted for the purpose of computing pension and other retiral benefits.
(ii)The above said benefit shall be extended only to the respondents in these writ appeals and for the persons similarly situated like that of the respondents herein, whose cases are pending before this Court. Thus it is made clear that the above said benefit shall not be extended to any other future cases that may be filed on this account, on the ground of delay and laches, since all along they have not come up before this Court and remained as fence-sitters. It is also needless to point out that allowing such cases would amount to opening the pandora's box, touching upon the financial implications of the State.”
6.The learned Judge has also considered the primordial submission made on behalf of the appellants/respondents as to the fixation of the cut of date and dealt with the same in paragraph No.19 of the order, wherein it is stated that "It is settled proposition of law that, in service matters, if the similarly placed persons, who are entitled to get the benefit under law, having been denied the benefit, even though in this regard already a decision has been rendered by the court of law and the same is implemented, the very same relief shall also be extended to all similarly placed persons irrespective of the fact, whether they http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 approached the Court or not, if the law declared by the Court is judgment in rem"
and recorded a finding that since it is a continuous process, the delay and laches would not come into play and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (6) SCC 721 [K.C.Sharma and others v. Union of India and others], so also, yet another judgment reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 [State of Karnataka and Others v. C.Lalitha].
7.The learned Judge also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.03.2018, made in W.A.No.51 of 2018 etc., batch [Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department and others v. K.Sakthivel and others], which also extended the benefit of counting 50% of the part time service rendered for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits and accordingly disposed of the Writ Petition.
8.It is also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 [Government of Tamil Nadu v. R.Kaliyamoorthy], which has dealt with the cut of date in terms of Rules 2 and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as well as Rules 10(a)(i)(1) and 2(1) of Subordinate Service Rules and concluded as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020
(i) Those, who are freshly appointed on or after 1.4.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003.
(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 1.4.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
(iii) In case, a Government Employee/servant had also rendered service in Non-Provincialised service, or on Consolidated pay or on Honorarium or Daily Wage basis and if such services were regularised before 1.4.2003, half of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of Pensionary benefits.
(iv) Those government servants, who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 1.4.2003 and absorbed into Regular service after 1.4.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.
(v) Those government servants, who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 1.4.2003 but were absorbed in Regular service after 1.4.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension."
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020
9.In the light of the fact that the point in issue has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of respondent/writ petitioner and that in the light of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the extension of benefits in respect of the persons similarly placed and in the case of continuous cause of action, the question of delay of laches does not arise, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10.This Court on an independent application of mind to the materials placed and the reasons assigned is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the order of the learned Single Judge and there is no merit in the Writ Appeal.
11.In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 23.07.2018, made in W.P.(MD) No.15925 of 2018. The appellants/ Respondents are directed to comply with the order dated 23.07.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.15925 of 2018 as confirmed in this Writ Appeal within 10 (Ten) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the respondent/writ petitioner. Consequently, connected http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Index :Yes/No [M.S.N.J.,] [P.R.M.J.,]
Internet :Yes/No 18.09.2020
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
AND P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.
sj W.A.(MD)No.858 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD) No.4770 of 2020 18.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10