Madras High Court
Pushbam vs The Director Of Elementary School ... on 10 September, 2012
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/09/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.6060 of 2005 1.Pushbam 2.D.Yuvaraj 3.D.Jeyaraj ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. 2.The Principal Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur. 4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Thanthoni, Karur. 5.The State of Tamil Nadu, by the Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his Proc.Na.Ka.No.68031/J1/2004, dated 15.03.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits due to be paid to the petitioners on the death of the first petitioner's husband with 18% interest per annum and exemplary costs. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Singaravelan ^For Respondents 1,3 and 5... Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader. For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.P.Gunasekaran :ORDER
Being aggrieved by the proceeding in R.C.No.68031/J1/2004, dated 15.03.2005, by which the request of the petitioner to disburse the salary due and payable to her deceased husband and the family pension has been turned down by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.According to the petitioner, her husband was an ex-serviceman. He was employed in an aided elementary school from 18.09.1960 to 31.03.1962. He was placed under suspension on 07.10.1971 upto 30.06.1972 for seven months and 50% of the subsistence allowance was paid. From 7th month onwards, he was paid 75% of the subsistence allowance. It is the case of the petitioner that from 01.07.1972 onwards subsistence allowance was not paid. In the meantime, he died on 19.04.1986.
3.According to the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, did not come to an end till the date of his death. Had he continued his service, he would have reached the age of his superannuation and he would have been allowed to continue in service, till the end of academic year ie., 31.05.1989.
4.Referring to the proceedings of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Thanthoni, Karur District, dated 15.10.2004 addressed to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur District, the third respondent, the petitioner has contended that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first petitioner's husband did not reach any finality and therefore, the period of out of employment from the date of suspension till his death ought to have been regulated and that as legal heirs, the petitioners are entitled to receive arrears of salary and other death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension and other retirement benefits. It is the contention of the petitioners that as per the Fundamental Rule, disciplinary proceedings which were pending against her husband on the date of his death are to be deemed to have been abated and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to pension and other monetary benefits.
5.It is the further case of the petitioners that though representations have been made, they were not responded properly and therefore, she was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.3791 of 2004. Vide order dated 30.11.2004, this Court directed the Director of Elementary School Education, Chennai to pass an order on the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.11.2004, taking note of the proceedings, dated 15.10.2004 of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union, Karur District, within eight weeks. Pursuant to the directions, the Director of Elementary School Education, Chennai has passed the present impugned order expressing his inability to grant retirement benefits on the ground that the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has given contrary information from time to time and that he has not handed over the service register of the first petitioner's husband to the Education Department. The Education Department has further submitted that they cannot be held responsible for the failure on the part of the panchayat union to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders after placing the first petitioner's husband under suspension.
6.It is the grievance of the petitioners that while passing the impugned order, the Director of Elementary School Education, Chennai has not considered the earlier orders of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur District which would prove that her husband continued in service without any final order on the disciplinary proceedings. It is also the contention of the petitioners that while the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has written a letter, dated 03.01.2005 stating that the services of the first petitioner's husband were transferred to the office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and that the file regarding regularisation of services would be available in the office of the Education Department. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer has now blamed the Panchayat union stating that it is a fault on the panchayat to keep the file pending for more than 10 years.
7.It is the grievance of the petitioners that by making accusations against each other, the Education Department has delayed disbursement of arrears of salary and retirement benefits. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to death cum retirement gratuity and other retirement benefits etc.,
8.For the abovesaid reasons, the petitioners prayed to quash the order dated 15.03.2005 of the Director of Elementary School Education, Chennai and consequently, direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits due and payable to the first petitioner's husband.
9.Two counter affidavits have been filed by Mr.C.Gopal, Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur District, dated 10.11.2005 wherein he has submitted that it is for the petitioner to prove that her husband was a teacher in the aided school and thereafter in Thanthoni Panchayat Union School temporarily suspended from service from 07.10.1971 and periodically paid subsistence allowance. It is also stated that it is for the petitioners to prove that the disciplinary proceedings against the first petitioner's husband did not come to an end till the date of his death. He has submitted that the teachers who were under the control of the panchayat were transferred to Education Department on 01.06.1981. But the records pertaining to the first petitioner's husband Mr.J.M.Dalhousie were not handed over to the Education Department. According to him, the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has sent three letters, dated 14.09.2002, 05.07.2004 and 15.10.2004 containing contradictory statements with each other and that there is a clear attempt to shift the responsibility and liability on the Education Department. He has further submitted that the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has not produced or submitted any documentary evidence or service particulars of the first petitioner's husband.
10.Though the fourth respondent has averred that the entire records in respect of J.M.Dalhousie were transferred to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur District, it is not supported with any evidence. Whereas, from the available documents, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, had secured only one letter which states that "Commissioner of Panchayat Union has ordered to recover the balance loan amount to be paid to Khadi Department by deducting from the first petitioner's husband provident fund account as he had been dismissed from service during 1972 itself and this letter has also been communicated to the petitioner's husband.
11.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer has further submitted that there is yet another letter by the then Village Munsif of Mookanakkurichi Village, Karur Taluk, dated 04.09.1992 wherein he has clearly stated that Mr.Narasimhan, Thanthoni Panchayat Union Commissioner has dismissed both J.M.Dalhousie and his wife J.Pushpam from service. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, has also submitted that the first petitioner in her letter dated 11.07.1994 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has admitted that her husband was removed from service. Therefore, the contention of the third respondent that when the petitioners themselves were aware of the fact that the said J.M.Dalhousie was removed from service, it should be deemed that the disciplinary proceedings have reached a finality even before his death and in the said circumstances, the legal heirs of the said J.M.Dalhousie are not entitled to retirement benefits.
12.Record of proceedings show that in M.P.No.6595 of 2005, this Court by an order dated 11.08.2005 has directed the respondents to pay 50% amount of the death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension, pension arrears, provident fund and special provident fund arrears within 12 weeks.
13.The counter affidavit filed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 filed by Mr.K.Subramani, Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni is almost on the same line as that of the earlier counter affidavit.
14.There is no dispute that the first petitioner's husband had worked as teacher in the aided elementary school and that he was suspended from service. The dispute is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first petitioner's husband had attained finality or he died during the pendency.
15.As per the request of the petitioner, dated 22.09.1987 addressed to the District Educational Officer, Karur, that her husband was suspended and not reinstated in service and after the demise of her husband with five children, she has faced inexplicable agony. Pursuant to the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, R.C.No.11540/EH1/2000, dated 27.03.2000 directing the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, to take steps for disbursement of benefits due and payable to the petitioners, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, vide his letter dated 26.05.2000, has replied to the Director of Elementary school Education, Chennai that the service records were still with the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union and that a request has been made to the Panchayat Officials for the records. In his reply to the Director of Elementary School Education, Chennai, has stated that appropriate steps would be taken no sooner the service records are received from the Panchayat.
16.Subsequently, when another request for pension and employment assistance was made, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruchirapalli, by his letter dated 19.12.2000 has requested the District Educational Officer, Karur to take appropriate steps. In response to the same, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur has requested the petitioner to approach the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni. Thereafter, vide proceedings in R.C.No.465/A1/2000, dated 31.01.2002, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, has addressed to the Accountant General, Chennai stating that the first petitioner had enclosed certificates obtained from the schools wherein her husband had worked and that he has also stated that the service records were not available in the office of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union. He has also stated that the petitioner's husband had worked as a higher grade teacher in Thanthoni Panchayat Uion Elementary School, Thanthoni Panchayat suspended on 07.10.1971 by the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union and that he died on 19.04.1986. On the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioner, he has sought for appropriate orders from the Accountant General, Chennai on his proposal for family pension.
17.In another letter, dated 05.08.2002, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur sent to the petitioner, he has stated that the request for employment assistance would be considered only if the application is submitted by her is in proper format.
18.On 11.09.2002, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni has sent a letter to the petitioner stating that when the teachers working in panchayat schools were transferred to the control of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the service register of the petitioner's husband has not been handed over by the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union. In response to the petition submitted to the District Collector, Karur, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, in his letter dated 16.09.2003, has stated that the first petitioner's husband was placed under suspension and died on 19.04.1986. He has also stated that appropriate proposals have been sent to the Accountant General, Chennai, while considering the request, on his part, the Accountant General, Chennai, has also requested the District Elementary Educational Officer, to send the duplicate copy of the service register, documents collected regarding the service rendered by the first petitioner's husband with educational qualification and copy of the letters, dated 16.09.2003 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer.
19.A reply dated 28.11.2003 has been sent by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer stating that the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union, Karur District in his letter dated 14.09.2002 has furnished the following particulars:
"the petitioner's husband/ J.M.Dalhousie was placed under suspension on 06.10.1971 and from 06.10.1971 to 30.06.1972, he was paid subsistence allowance and from 01.07.1972, subsistence allowance was not paid and therefore, there is a possibility that final orders would have been passed. The service records and other documents have been sent to the Government on 1980 and it was not returned. It is also stated that though the petitioner was requested to submit certain details as to whether final orders on the proceedings initiated against the petitioner have been passed or not she had not submitted any details. According to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, the petitioner and her husband were suspended by a common order, 06.10.1971 and therefore, she must have known as to whether final orders were passed in the proceedings. But she has not disclosed the truth. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni in his letter to the Accountant General, had stated that after reinstatement the first petitioner was working as a teacher in Thiruverumpur Panchayat under the control of District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruchirapalli and after retirement, she is receiving pension".
20.Inasmuch as the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has stated that since 01.07.1972, the subsistence allowance had been stopped, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni was of the opinion that the first petitioner's husband would have been permanently terminated from service.
21.At this juncture, it is relevant to extract few paragraphs from the letter dated 28.11.2003 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni addressed to the Accountant General, (A&E) Madras.
" BkYk; ntuJ gzpg;gjpBtL kw;Wk; nju MtzA;fs; Bky; KiwaPL Fwpj;J 1980k; Mz;oy; muRf;F mDg;gg;gl;L fhyA;fle;j epiyapy; tug; bgwhky; cs;sJ vdj; bjhptpj;Js;shh;.
..............
...............
jpU.B$.vk;.ly;b#rp kw;Wk; mtuJ kidtp jpUkjp.B$.g[&;gk; Mfpa nUtiua[k; xBu cj;jputpy; jhe;Bjhzp Cuhl;rp xd;wpa Mizah; foj vz;.rp1/7961/71, ehs;: 6.10.71y; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; bra;Js;shh;. jpU.B$.vk;.ly;b#rp cjtpahrphpah; 19.04.1986-y; nwe;Js;shh;. fzth; kidtp nUtUk; xBu cj;jputpy; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy;, jhe;Bjhzp Cuhl;rp xd;wpa Mizauhy; nth;fSf;F nWjp Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh? ny;iyah vd;w tpguk; jpUkjp.B$.g[&;gk; cjtpahrphpaUf;F bjhpe;jpUf;f tha;g;g[s;sJ. nUg;gpDk; mth; cz;ikia Twhky; kiwg;gjpy; nUe;J re;Bjfk; vGfpwJ. Vbddpy; jpUkjp.B$.g[&;gk; vd;ghh; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fj;jpw;F gpwF jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; fl;Lg;ghl;oy; jpUtuk;g{h; xd;wpaj;jpy; cjtpahrphpauhf gzpg[hpe;J xa;t[ bgw;W jw;rkak; xa;t{jpak; bgw;W tUfpwhh;.
......
......
BkYk; ntuJ fl;Lg;ghl;L mYtyh; jhe;Bjhzp Cuhl;rp x;d;wpa Mizah; ghh;it 1y; fz;l fojj;jpy; jpU.B$.vk;.ly;b#rp Mrphpahpd; Bky;KiwaPL kD Fwpj;J 1980k; Mz;oy; ntuJ gzpg;gjpBtL kw;Wk; nju MtzA;fs; muRf;F mDg;gg;gl;L mk;kD fhyA;fle;j epiyapy; tug; bgwhky; ghprPyid bra;a nayhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;L nUg;gjpy; nUe;J ntuJ jw;fhypf gzp ePf;f cj;jputpd; kPJ nWjp Miz gpwg;gpj;jhy; kl;LBk Bky; KiwaPL bra;a naYk; vd nUg;gjhy; ntuJ jw;fhypf gzp ePf;f eltof;ifapd; kPJ nWjp Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;oUf;fyhk; vd fUj tha;g;g[s;sJ."
22.Thus, it could be seen that on the premise that there is some possibility of a final order being passed on the proceedings initiated against the first petitioner's husband, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni has raised a doubt that the first petitioner's husband could have been terminated from service.
23.Material on record shows that the first petitioner has sent a registered letter to the Accountant General, Chennai. Typed set of papers filed by the petitioner shows that there was exchange of correspondences between the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni and the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union as regards furnishing of service particulars of the deceased J.M.Dalhousie. In one such letter in R.C.No.A1/2497, dated 15.10.2004 addressed to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union, has stated that no final order has been issued in the disciplinary proceedings. According to him, the period of suspension was regularised but then without joining duty, the petitioner's husband died.
24.The Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union has also stated that after 01.10.1981, the administrative control of the staff was transferred to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni and since the petitioner's hubsnad died while he was in service, the period of out of employment ought to have been regularised only by the education department.
25.For better appreciation, this Court deems it fit to extract certain paragraphs from the letter dated 15.10.2004 stated supra.
"....
2)Jiw eltof;if vLf;fg;gl;L nWjp Miz tHA;fg;gltpy;iy.
3)Bkw;goahh; gzp ePf;f fhyk;tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;L kPz;Lk; gzpapy; Bruhky;
19.04.1986-y; nwe;Jtpl;lhh;. 1.10.1981-f;F gpd;dh; gs;spf; fy;tp mYtyh;fspy; gzp tptuA;fs; eph;thf bghWg;g[fs; cjtp bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyUf;F khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vdBt nth; gzpapy; nUf;Fk;BghJ nUe;Jtpl;ljhy; ntuJ gzpePf;f fhyk; tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;L gpd; gzpBaw;w tptuk; cjtp fy;tp mYtyBu tud;KiwgLj;j Btz;Lk;. vdBt fhyk; fle;j epiyapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L nUf;fpd;w MtzA;fspd; mog;gilapy; khepy fzf;fhahplk; tptuk; bjhptpj;J khepy fzf;fhahplk; nUe;J rpwg;g[ mDkjp bgw;W xa;t{jpak; tHA;f eltof;if Bkw;bfhs;SkhW md;g[ld; Bfl;Lf; bfhs;fpBwd;"".
26.By a letter, dated 18.10.2004, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni has again requested the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union to furnish service particulars. In response to the letter dated 15.10.2004 stated supra, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, has replied stating that though panchayat union schools were brought under the administrative control of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, from 01.10.1981, the service records and the details regarding suspension and other documents were not submitted to the Educational Department. Once again, the Education Department, has raised a doubt that when the petitioner was also suspended along with her husband and thereafter, she had worked as teacher, in some other panchayat union, then final order in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's husband also would have been passed.
27.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni in the letter dated 05.11.2004, addressed to the Commissioner has stated that in the absence of any documents, there is difficulty in sending the proposals for retirement benefits. Subsequently, directions have been issued by this Court in W.P.No.3791 of 2004, by order dated 30.11.2004 to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction, after extracting the letters of the above two officials, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai in his letter dated 15.03.2005 has stated that records were searched in Panchayat Union Elementary, School, Thammanaikenpatti and that there were certain documents and that the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, along with his letter, has enclosed a true copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union in R.C.No.1/4848/73, dated 13.07.1973 addressed to the Headmaster of the said school to deduct Rs.90.23 (Semanalanidhi). In view of the above letter addressed to the Headmaster, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni has stated that since the petitioner had been terminated from service when he was working under the control of the Rural Development Department action cannot be taken in the Education Department. On the basis of the abovesaid letter and in the absence of the any materials supporting the contention of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat union that the service particulars of the petitioner's husband were forwarded to the Government, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai has arrived at the conclusion that there is a possibility of revocation of the suspension of the petitioner's husband and final orders would have been passed. It is also observed that in the absence of any material evidence such as service records or other documents supporting the contention of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union that the records were handed over to the Education Department, there is no possibility of granting family pension.
28.The conclusion arrived at by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, requires reproduction as to whether such conclusion could be justified in the light of the some other proceedings referred to by the Commissioner of Thanthoni Panchayat Union. For better appreciation,, paragraph 12 is extracted hereunder:
"BkYk;, jhe;Bjhzp Cuhl;rp x;d;wpa Mizahsh; fUh; khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;F vGjpa[s;s 14.09.2002 Bjjpapl;l 15.10.2004 Bjjpapl;l fojj;jpd; ghy; jpU.B$.ly;b#srp vd;gthpd; gzpg;gjpBtL kw;Wk; nju MtzA;fs; Bky;KiwaPL Fwpj;J Jiz Ml;rpah; Bfhg;g[ gK/29266/82 cld; jpUr;rp khtl;l Ml;rpahpd; 4.2.80 Bjjpa foj vz; 39765/80 y; muRf;F mDg;gg;gl;L bgwg;glhky; cs;sJ vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. JpU.B$.vk;.ly;b#srp vd;gthpd; gzpg;gjpBtL kw;Wk; mth;bjhlh;ghd MtzA;fs; 1.6.81 Cuhl;rp xd;wpa Mrphpah;fs; fy;tpj; Jiwf;F cl;gLj;jg;gl;l BghJ, xg;gilf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjid cWjp bra;Js;sd vd;gJld; chpa Mtzk; kw;Wk; Bfhg;g[fs; muRf;F Bky;KiwaPL bra;Js;s epiyapy;, jpU.B$.vk;.ly;b#srp vd;gthpd; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; tpyf;fp bfhs;sg;gl;L nWjpahiz tHA;fg;gl;oUf;fyhk; vdf;fUj tha;g;g[s;sJ.""
29.From the above, it could also be gathered that though there were certain specific references of the files of the Deputy Collector in Pa.Mu/29266/82 and the letter of the District Collector Letter No.39765/80, dated 04.02.1980 stating that the service records and other particulars were sent to the Government, the Education department has not taken any steps to ascertain as to whether the first petitioner's husband was once in for all terminated from service or after revocation of the suspension, the records have been forwarded to the Government, for any other purpose.
30.At this juncture, it is also to be noted that when both the petitioner and her husband were stated to be suspended by a common order, dated 06.10.1971 by the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union and stated to have paid subsistence allowance upto 06.07.1972 and when the first petitioner had been subsequently reinstated in service and retired as a teacher from some other union and paid pensionary benefits, the same yardstick could have been applied to the case of the petitioner's husband also by reinstating him in service. The version of the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union that the petitioner's husband was suspended but subsequently the suspension was revoked but subsequently, he did not join duty also probablise that both of them would have been reinstated in service. Even the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai at paragraph 12 of the impugned order has arrived at a tentative conclusion that the suspension of the first petitioner's husband could have been withdrawn and that final orders would have passed. No steps have been taken to verify the details relating to the file numbers of the Deputy Collector and the Collector, Trichy District referred to at paragraph 12 of the impugned order. Yet another factor to be considered is that when both of them were placed under suspension, the service records pertaining to the first petitioner would have revealed as to whether disciplinary action was taken against her, whether any charges had been framed etc. Merely, because the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union had not furnished any supporting evidence, in the absence of any clear proof of termination of the first petitioner's husband from service, the conclusion arrived at by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai that the case of the petitioners for grant of family pension and other retiral benefits is not feasible cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the first petitioner is not able to strengthen her case, when the attention of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai has been invited to certain file numbers of the Deputy Collector and Collector respectively, sent to the Government, and referred to in paragraph 12, as stated supra, the said authority ought to have taken steps to ascertain as to whether the files pertain to any disciplinary action against the petitioner's husband and whether final orders have been passed with reference to the common suspension order dated 06.10.1971 issued by the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union or it was only with reference to regulating the period of suspension.
31.At this juncture, it is once again to be noted that earlier the Commissioner, Thanthoni Panchayat Union in his correspondence with the Education Department has stated that the period of out of employment was not regulated and that no final orders have been passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any concrete evidence, to prove that the petitioner's husband was terminated from service, this Court is of the request of the petitioners seeking pension and retirement benefits cannot be turned down on mere surmises and conjectures. Even the letter No.1/4848/73, dated 13.07.1973 said to have been addressed to the Headmaster, Thammanayaikanpatti, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of termination as no records, have been placed before this Court.
32.Record of proceedings also shows that this Court in W.P.M.P.No.6595 of 2005 has directed the respondents to disburse 50% of the death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension, pension arrears, provident fund and special provident fund and no appeal has been filed against the said order. On the contra, for non implementation of the order, this Court has given an opportunity to the respondents to comply with the above order before initiating contempt proceedings against them.
33.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners for pension and retirement benefits, ought to have been considered with the available service particulars treating the first petitioner's husband to have served in Thammanaiyakanpatti Panchayat Union Elementary School from 06.07.1972 to 19.04.1986 and that the period of suspension has to be regulated in terms of the Fundamental Rules as there are no specific records, indicating termination of the service of the petitioner's husband, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner's husband died on 19.04.1986 even if any proceedings had been initiated, the same ought to have been treated as abetted. Consequently, the pension and retirements benefits have to be computed in terms of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, subject to the condition that the petitioner's husband satisfies the required qualifying service as per pension rules.
34.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to compute the amount due and payable and to submit suitable proposals to the Accountant General, Chennai for proper authorisation. It is made clear that there has been long correspondence between the officials and more than 26 years have lapsed since the petitioner's husband died. Taking into consideration of the said aspect with all the available materials, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai shall send suitable proposals within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Accountant General, Chennai, shall issue necessary authorisation letter for disbursement of death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension, pension arrears, provident fund and special provident fund, within a period of two months thereafter. The petitioner shall also submit all the available documents, so as to facilitate the authorities to process the papers. Writ Petition is allowed as indicated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
sms To
1.The Director of Elementary School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.
2.The Principal Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai-18.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thanthoni, Karur.
4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Thanthoni, Karur.
5.The State of Tamil Nadu, by the Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.