Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs St on 18 August, 2020
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18/08/2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.A(MD)Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3977, 3979, 3980, 4004 and 4005 of 2020
W.A(MD)Nos.629 to 631 of 2020:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I Campus College Road, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
.... Appellants 1 to 3 in W.A(MD)Nos.629 to 631 of 2020
4.The Correspondent,
Muslim Hr. Sec. School,
Abiramam, Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram. ... 4th Appellant in W.A(MD)No.631 of 2020
vs.
st
1.M.Pitchai ...1 respondent in W.A(MD)No.629 of 2020
2.J.Susila ... 1st respondent in W.A(MD)No.630 of 2020
3.K.Selvanarayanan ... 1st respondent in W.A(MD)No.631 of 2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
4.The Accountant General,
(Accounts and Entitlements),
Accountant General Department,
Chennai – 625 018.
... 2nd Respondent in
W.A(MD)Nos.629 to 631 of 2020
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
Act, to set aside the order dated 09.07.2018 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.14440,
14442 and 1444 of 2018 and allow the writ appeals.
For Appellants
(In All W.As) : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For R-1 in : Mr.R.Ragavendran
(W.A(MD)No.629 & 630 of 2020)
For R-2 in
W.A(MD)No.631 of 2020: No Appearance
For R-2
(In all W.As) : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
W.A(MD)Nos.636 and 637 of 2020:
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/10
W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
3.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational),
O/o.the Director of School Education,
D.P.I Complex, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
... Appellants in all writ appeals/
Respondents 1 to 4
-Vs-
1.P.Subburaj
... 1st respondent in W.A(MD)No.636 of 2020/ writ petitioner
2.P.Rajendran
... 1st respondent in W.A(MD)No.637 of 2020/writ petitioner
3.The Accountant General,
O/o.the Accountant General (A & E),
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... 2nd respondent in all writ appeals / respondent
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
Act, to set aside the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in
W.P(MD)Nos.16458 and 16457 of 2018 and allow the writ appeals.
(In both W.As)
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.R.Ragavendran
For R-2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/10
W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] By consent, these Writ Appeals are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The respective private respondents had retired from service as Teachers and most of them were appointed as Part Time Vocational Teachers/ Vocational Instructors and in that capacity, worked for very many years.
3. In pursuant to the various orders/proceedings, they have brought under regular time scale of pay in the form of regularization of their services and after reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service and the pensionary benefits had been calculated on the basis of the service rendered from the date of regularization. The respective writ petitioners / private respondents took a stand that in terms of Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which also got amended subsequently, the past services rendered, are to be treated as valuable pensionable service and despite that, the services rendered by them as Part Time Vocational Instructors have not been considered. In this regard, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020 some of the aggrieved persons / widow of the retired teachers/employees filed W.P(MD)Nos.6065 of 2016 and 6789 of 2017 as well as W.P(MD)No.11896 of 2018 and this Court relying upon Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, disposed of the writ petitions. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/private respondents relying upon the said decision, prayed for similar relief.
4. The learned single Judge had taken up all the writ petitions together and by taking into consideration the orders made in W.P(MD)No.16771 of 2013 (V.Ragavan vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department and others), W.P(MD)Nos.256 and 257 of 2015 (P.Natarajan and another vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department and others) as well as a Division Bench common judgment dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., batch (the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and others v. K.Pachaiyappan and others), has granted the relief and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ petitions are filed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the above cited common judgment dated 06.04.2018 in W.ANo.882 of 2017 etc., batch, had considered the issue relating to counting of 50% of the services rendered by the respondents as Single Part Time / Double Part Time Vocational Instructors, along with regular service as Vocational Instructors, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits and taking into considering the earlier judgments, disposed of the batch of writ appeals and it is relevant to extract Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment.
'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 Instructor (either as Single Part Time or Double Part Time Vocational Instructor), 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020 that allowing such cases would amount to opening the pandora's box, touching upon the financial implications of the State.'
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the grant of time scale of pay would not confer upon the private respondents any benefit, for the reason that admittedly, they have rendered only part-time services and as such, the judgment relied on by the learned single Judge are distinguishable on facts and prays for interference.
7. Per contra, the respective counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that admittedly no challenge has been made to the common judgment dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., batch and it is also not in serious dispute that the private respondents/writ petitioners are similarly placed like that of the appellants in the order referred to by the learned single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeals.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents / writ petitioners that no challenge has been made to the common http://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020 judgment dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., batch (referred to supra) and the learned Special Government Pleader is unable to point out any difference or distinction as to the facts of the present cases also.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above cited common judgment has full application to the cases on hand and a perusal of the impugned orders would also disclose that apart from the said judgment, reliance has been made to very many judgments and it had also reached finality and the concerned writ petitioners have also conferred with similar benefits. The prescription of cut-off date may not have any bearing for the reasons, respondents are similarly placed and they have continuous cause of action and therefore, delay and laches cannot be put against them. Even otherwise, it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.
11. This Court on an independent application of mind and appraisal to the relevant materials placed and also considering the rival submissions, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge for allowing the writ petitions with certain directions and this Court finds no merits in these writ appeals. http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020
12. In the result, these writ appeals are dismissed confirming the common order dated 09.07.2018 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.14440, 14442 and 1444 of 2018 and the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.16458 and 16457 of 2018. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13. The appellant/official respondents are directed to comply with the orders passed by the learned single Judge as confirmed in these writ appeals within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order and sent communications to the respective private respondents / writ petitioners.
[M.S.N. J.,] [P.R.M. J.,]
18.08.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pm
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. http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 W.A(MD) Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and P.RAJAMANICKAM, J., pm Judgment in W.A(MD)Nos.629 to 631, 636 and 637 of 2020 18.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10