Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

V.Iyype vs The Director Of School Educational on 5 July, 2022

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                             W.P.No.3091 of 2015

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 05.07.2022

                                                            CORAM

                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    W.P.No.3091 of 2015
                                                     & M.P.No.1 of 2015

                     V.Iyype                                                        ...Petitioner

                                                             ..Vs..

                     1.The Director of School Educational
                           Higher Secondary Education,
                       College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

                     2.The Chief Educational Officer,
                       Udhagamandalam,
                       The Nilgiris District.

                     3.The Headmaster,
                           Government Higher Secondary School,
                       Gudalur, The Nilgiris District,
                       PIN – 643 211.

                     4.The Principal Accountant General
                          (Accounts & Entitlement), Tamil Nadu
                       381, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018.
                                                                                    ... Respondents


                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     records pertaining to the orders passed by 4 th respondent in his letter
                     No. Pen 10/4/11015357/2014-2015/ADK/MISC dated 10.12.2014,
                     quash the same and direct the respondents to count 50% of the part
                     time service, revise the pension and confer all the consequential


                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          W.P.No.3091 of 2015

                     benefits to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.


                                       For Petitioner   : Mr.P.Ganesan
                                                          for M/s.C.S.Associates

                                       For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
                                                         Government Advocate [R.1 to R.3]
                                                         M/s.C.Sangamithirai [R.4]



                                                          ORDER

The order of rejection, dated 10.12.2014 issued by the fourth respondent in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for counting of the 50% of the past services rendered on temporary basis, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as part time Vocational Teacher on 01.12.1978 and subsequently, he was regularly appointed as a full time Vocational Teacher from 04.04.1990 onwards.

3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the part time service rendered by him for about 12 years had not been taken into account for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for fixing the pensionary benefits. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide proceedings, dated 10.12.2014. The reasons 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3091 of 2015 stated is that as per the G.O.Ms.No.408 (Finance) Pension, dated 25.08.2009 only those Teachers worked as Part Time Vocational Instructor as full time are eligible for the 50% of the services to be taken as qualifying service and not for part time official.

4. The Government amended the Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in G.O.Ms.No.41, Finance (Pension), dated 9 th February 2010. The amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is extracted hereunder:-

“In the said Rules, in rule 11, after sub-rule (3) the following sub-rule shall be added namely:-
(4) Half of the service rendered under the State Government in non- rovincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(I) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment;
(ii)Service rendered shall be on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages paid on monthly basis and subsequently absorbed in regular service under the State 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3091 of 2015 Government;
(iii) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break;

Provided that this sub-rule is applicable to all employees who rendered service under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 and absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003.

Provided further that whatever service before their absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003, the same shall be specially condoned by the orders of the Head of Departments, in which the employees were regularly absorbed and such period of break, shall not count for the purpose of pensionary benefits.”

5. Pursuant to the amended Rule, even the honorarium or daily wage basis or consolidated pay service also can be taken into account for the purpose of counting of 50% of the service. This Court also allowed the claim of such part time employee for the purpose of counting of their 50% of service as qualifying service. This being the factum, the case of the writ petitioner also to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in V.Ramar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 Writ L.R.687. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3091 of 2015

6. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the by the fourth respondent in his letter No. Pen 10/4/11015357/2014- 2015/ADK/MISC dated 10.12.2014 is quashed. The writ petitioner is permitted to submit necessary representation along with required documents to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the amended Rule-11 and based on the judgment of this Court and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by verifying his service records, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.07.2022 mrm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3091 of 2015 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

mrm To

1.The Director of School Educational Higher Secondary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

3.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District, PIN – 643 211.

4.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement), Tamil Nadu 381, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018.

W.P.No.3091 of 2015

05.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis