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 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Rajaraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2023

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                        W.P.No.29841 of 2010


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 28.08.2023

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              W.P.No.29841 of 2010
                                                      and
                                               M.P.No.1 of 2010

                     R.Rajaraman                                          ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs.


                     1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
                        Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
                        Finance Pension Department,
                        Fort St.George,
                        Chennai -9.

                     2. The Director of Elementary Education,
                        College Road,
                        Chennai -6.

                     3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
                        Tanjore District.

                     4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
                        Thiruvidaimarudur, Tanjore District.

                     5. The Secretary,
                        Rajaraman Aided School,
                      Narasingampettai,

                     Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.P.No.29841 of 2010


                      Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk,
                      Tanjore District 612 602.                                    ... Respondents


                     PRAYER:          Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a Writ of declaration or any other Writ or order or direction
                     in the nature of a Writ, declaring the New Contributory Provident Fund
                     Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated
                     06.08.2003 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004 is not
                     applicable to the petitioner because it cannot be given retrospective
                     operation and direct the respondent to restore the Teachers Provident
                     Fund (Family Pension) Scheme and Account No.331903.


                                     For Petitioner   : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran

                                     For R1 to R4     : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Spl.G.P

                                     For R5           : Mr.K.Sathishkumar

                                                       ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to declare the New Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004 are not applicable to the petitioner. Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29841 of 2010

2. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent School on 18.04.2003. His appointment was also approved by the third respondent. After his appointment, he was enrolled under Teacher Provident Fund Scheme as TPF No.331903. All of a sudden, the petitioner's enrolment number was cancelled and deductions were stopped from the month of March 2010. The new Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was notified by G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004. But the scheme was implemented with effect from 01.04.2003. As per G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003, the Old Pension Scheme will not applicable to the Government servants who are joined on or after 01.04.2003. The process of appointment of the petitioner was started from the date of vacancy and ended with the issuance of appointment order. The abovesaid G.O was brought in a new Pension Scheme with retrospective operation. The petitioner was appointed in the vacancy arose for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher due to voluntary resignation of one Ramasamy on 04.06.2002. His resignation was duly approved by the third respondent. Thereafter, the fifth respondent sought permission to fill up the said Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29841 of 2010 vacancy in the year 2002 itself. The fourth respondent by proceedings dated 04.03.2003 recommended the fifth respondent to fill up the vacancy of the Secondary Grade Teacher Post through direct recruitment. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for interview on 29.03.2003 itself and he has selected to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on merits. Therefore, the third respondent accorded permission to fill up the said post only 15.04.2003.

3. On a perusal of records, it revealed that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent school in the vacancy post that arose on 11.12.2002 and subsequently his appointment was also approved by the third respondent vide order dated 29.04.2004.

4. In a similar issue, this Court held that though G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003 came into effect from 01.04.2003, the old pension scheme will not apply to the Government service who are appointed on or after 01.04.2003, the process of appointment was Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29841 of 2010 started from the date of vacancy and ended with the issuance of appointment order. In the above said G.O., the new Pension Scheme has been brought in with retrospective operation. Because of the retrospective operation of the New Pension Scheme, no employer and employee would have forethought that appointments made after 01.04.2003 would not be eligible for the Old Pension Scheme.

5. As stated supra, the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy arose before 01.04.2003 and he was enrolled as TPF No.331903. Therefore, this Court is of the view that G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.304 dated 27.05.2004 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Further, the respondents are directed to restore the Teachers Provident Fund (Family Pension) Scheme and TPF No.331903 in respect of the petitioner and permit him to continue under the Provident Fund (Family Pension) Scheme.

Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29841 of 2010

6. With the abovesaid direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.08.2023 ( 1/2 ) mfa Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Finance Pension Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai -6.

3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tanjore District.

4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvidaimarudur, Tanjore District.

5. The Secretary, Rajaraman Aided School, Narasingampettai, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Tanjore District 612 602.

Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29841 of 2010 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN ,J., mfa W.P.No.29841 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 28.08.2023 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis