Petitioner given benefit of pension.

SIRPURKAR, J.

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.

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 though, he was working in the aided recognised schools. He had also serve 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 particularly the Government Orders 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.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.

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 particularly to paragraph 6(ii) therein, which runs as under :

"Pension can be sanctioned even in case 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 Orde