Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. vs S.V. Paul Jayaraj on 27 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)3MLJ430
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar
JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. In this appeal filed by the Government, the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent is in challenge. By that order, the learned single Judge of this Court held that the present respondent, S.V. Paul Jeyaraj, was entitled to the pension. The following facts will clarify the controversy.
2. The respondent herein was a teacher. He joined the service somewhere in the year 1947 and with few breaks kept on serving upto 31.5.1967. His total period of service was 18 years 7 months and 25 days. All through, he was working in the aided recognised schools, he had also served in army for three years from 13.4.1943 to 20.5.1946. It is, however, an admitted fact that he resigned from his service while he was working in Ramalinga Chettiar High School, Coimbatore. He wanted to serve the tribals and that is the reason why he seems to have resigned from the service. He sent in a representation on 6.6.1967 wherein he sought the pensionary benefits under the pension scheme which was introduced by the Government in case of such teachers and it was to operate with effect from 1.4.1955. That scheme was called the "Teachers Pension Scheme". It is an admitted position that after the scheme was introduced, the Government also went on to frame the rules for this purpose and introduced various other Government Orders whereby the scheme was made teachers' friendly from time to time. The respondent teacher, in his representation, relied upon the various Government Orders and more particulary the Government Order, bearing G.O.Ms. No. 1015, dated 5.6.1981. It seems that his representation was rejected though initially he was asked to send the documents relating to his service which he admittedly had sent. However, on 21.7.1992, the representation of the respondent was rejected and that is how he approached this Court by way of a writ petition.
3. Before the learned single Judge, the respondent pointed out, heavily relying on the aforementioned Government Order No. 1015, dated 5.6.1981 and more particularly paragraph 6 (ii) therein, that pension could be sanctioned even in case where the concerned incumbent had resigned. He further pointed out that there was another Government Order, G.O.No. 37, dated 5.1.1983, clarifying the aforementioned G.O.Ms.No. 1015. The learned single Judge, after studiously considering all the Government Orders right from the beginning, has recorded a finding that the petitioner was undoubtedly entitled to the pension. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge found that the petitioner had already put in more service than the minimum required service for pension. The learned Judge also specifically relied on the fact that the petitioner had resigned from the service on 1.6.1967 while the crucial date as per the G.O.Ms.No. 1015, dated 5.6.1981 for the grant of pension was 1.3.1968 and the petitioner's resignation was even prior to the crucial date.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, however, strongly urged that the learned single Judge had not correctly read the aforementioned Government Order, G.O.Ms.No. 1015, dated 5.6.1981. The learned Government Advocate invited out attention more particulary to paragraph 6 (ii) therein, which runs as under:
Pension can be sanctioned even in cases where the incumbents had "resigned" since they could not have foreseen the institution of Pension Scheme at the time they "resigned".
From this, the learned Counsel says that the language was clear enough to suggest that the pension could be sanctioned only in cases of the incumbents who had resigned prior to the introduction of the pension scheme, which was in the year 1958. The learned Government Advocate also invited our attention to the Government letter No. 107514/91-1-Edn., dated 2.1.1982, wherein the Government had again taken the stand that the concession given was intended to cover only resignation made before the dates of the respective Government Orders introducing the pension benefits to the various categories. In that, the learned Government Advocate says that the resignation of the respondent teacher is dated 1.6.1967 and, therefore, it is beyond the original Government Order which was introduced only in 1958 by which the Pension Scheme was introduced.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Vaigai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent teacher supported the judgment and pointed out that it would be travesty to hold that the persons who had resigned before 1.4.1955 were entitled to the pension whereas those persons who had put in the minimum pensionable service and thereafter had resigned would be deprived of the pensionary benefits. The learned Counsel argues that under Rule 12(a) of the Rules which have been framed by the Government for introducing this scheme though the teacher who has resigned is not included yet the teacher who, has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment has been included at Rule 12(a)(vi). The learned Counsel, therefore, points out that it will be a great travesty that a teacher who has been discharged on account of compulsory retirement as a measure of punishment would be entitled to the pension while a teacher who has honourably resigned after serving for a minimum period of pensionable service would not be entitled to the same. The learned Counsel, therefore, supports the judgment of the learned single Judge.
6. There is no doubt that under Rule 12, there is no entitlement of pensionary benefits to a teacher who has actually resigned from the service. However, our attention is invited to the copy of G.O.Ms.No. 37, dated 5.1.1983 and more particularly to paragraphs 6 and 7 therein, which are self-explanatory and hence are being quoted by us. They are as follows:
6. As regards "those who retired before the crucial dates" in the case of Non-teaching staff etc. who were given Pension benefits from 5.6.1981, there are specific general instructions in para 6 of G.O.No. 1015, 5.6.1981 permitting the allowing of pension to "Resigned" persons also; but there are no such general instructions permitting the allowing of pension to "Resigned" teachers (who were given pension benefits from 1.3.68 as per G.O.Ms.No. 1505/24.9.1968). Orders are however being issued in individual cases of such teachers who had "resigned" before the crucial dates. In this context, the Accountant General has asked for a clarification on the following two points:
(i) Whether it is the intention of the Government to allow pension to all the teaching staff of Aided and Local Body Schools and Teaching Staff of Aided College who had "Resigned" from service prior to the respective crucial date/dates of the respective Government Order introducing pensionary benefits?
(ii) and if so, whether they are eligible to draw pension from 1.3.1968 with reference to Government Order Ms.No. 1505, Edn., dated 24.9.1968 read with Government Memo.No. 21344/E.6/68-5, Edn., dated 18.11.1968.
7. The Government now clarify point (i) above in the affirmative - i.e., the staff in question may be sanctioned pension by the respective authorities competent to sanction pension (without the need for any specific orders of any higher authority or of Government condoning the "resignation" in each individual case).
7. It is therefore clear that a teacher who has resigned even after the crucial dates can be sanctioned pension by the respective authorities competent to sanction pension even without any specific orders from the higher authorities or of the Government condoning the resignation in each individual case. This would clinch the issue in favour of the respondent teacher and we find that the learned single Judge has also relied on the aforementioned Government Order, G.O.Ms.No. 37. This is apart from the fact that even the language of the Government Order dated 5.6.1981 and more particulary of paragraph 6(ii) cannot be interpreted so as to oust the teachers who have resigned after the introduction of the Pension Scheme. The provision has to be interpreted as giving a concessions even to the persons who have resigned earlier to the institution of the said Pension Scheme. We need not go into that aspect because G.O.Ms.No. 37 is more than clear. Therefore, we confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are told that there is a stay in the matter. We direct the Government to finalise the pension of the respondent teacher within three months from today.
8. The appeal is dismissed but without any orders as to the costs. Connected C.M.P. No. 5349 of 2001 is closed.