Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
U. Narasimhan – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 10327 of 2017
Decided On : 18-03-2021
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 12 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Compassionate Appointment – Writ of mandamus – Present petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for counting his service for the period while the school was functioning as an recognised unaided school between 6.6.1974 and 31.5.1991 and to count the said period along with his further service for the purpose of calculation of pension, selection/special grade as well as other consequential service and retirement benefits in line with the order passed by this Court and by taking into consideration the relief granted to similarly placed persons.
Finding of court: Practice of the Government issuing Government Orders for fulfilling the needs of individual persons, for one reason or the other, should be put a stop to, as otherwise the clause of equality enshrined in the Constitution gets defeated. – Composite guidelines have to be issued taking into consideration the different types of scenario that may arise and resorting to issuance of individual Government Orders should be curtailed. – If for some reason, a particular eventuality, not foreseen and incorporated in the composite guidelines, arise, the Government, instead of issuing a separate Government Order concerning that particular case is concerned, should instead amend the composite Government Order issued so that the benefit accrues to all similarly placed persons and it does not act to the whims and caprice of the individuals, which alone would be the hallmark of equality and justice for the citizens. – Court would like to point out that in the matter of compassionate appointments, which was a perennial problem resulting in the issuance of very many Government Orders, which was pressed into service at the whims and fancies of individual persons, at the behest of the order passed by this Court, finally a composite Government Order covering all the facets of compassionate appointment had been issued to put to rest the problem relating to compassionate appointment. – Likewise, a comprehensive and composite Government Order in the above scenario would not only be a welcome addition, but would in effect lead to the efficient working of the Governmental machinery, which cannot be bent to the vagaries of one or other persons to their benefit. – Government shall take inputs of all the necessary parties while formulating the composite Government Order and issue the same at the earliest so that safeguard is made not only to the finances of the State, but also putting an end to the multiplicity of proceeding before this Court – It is high time that the Government revisits the various Government Orders issued on this subject and correlate all the aspects necessary for the purpose and issue a composite Government Order covering the entire gamut relating to recognised aided and unaided private schools, so that not only a stop is put to the multiplicity of petitions filed before this Court, but also would entail safeguarding the finances of the State from being given to persons, who are not entitled to be a recipient of the same. – While issuing a composite Government Order, the Government may also ponder over fixing responsibility on the officers who act in detriment to the said order, by passing orders, which are not in consonance with the directions issued so as to safeguard the erosion of the finance of the State by unscrupulous individuals.
Result: Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to count the service of the petitioner for the period from 6.6.1974 to 31.5.1991 along with the service of the petitioner from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.2009 like that of other similarly placed person extending the benefit of counting the service of the unaided school by order of the 1st respondent in Letter No.74418/D2/96 dated 21.7.1997 and in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 427 dated 1.4.2013 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant Selection Grade, Special Grade, monetary and other service and consequential pensionary benefits for the entire period from 6.6.1974 to 30.06.2009 for 35 years of service.)
1. The present petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for counting his service for the period while the school was functioning as an recognised unaided school between 6.6.1974 and 31.5.1991 and to count the said period along with his further service for the purpose of calculation of pension, selection/special grade as well as other consequential service and retirement benefits in line with the order passed by this Court and by taking into consideration the relief granted to similarly placed persons.
2. It is the undisputed case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher on 6.6.1974 in the unaided recognised and approved school at Anginugu Palangalathu Palli, Dindigul and he continued in the said post till the year 1985 and, thereafter, he was absorbed as Secondary Grade Teacher in 1985 and retired on 30.6.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that the school was converted as aided school vide issuance of G.O. Ms. No.41 dated 29.4.1997 retrospectively from 1.6.1991 and for all purposes, the petitioner was in the employment of the aided school from 1.6.1991 till the date of his superannuation on 30.6.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the superannuation of the petitioner, he was paid the retirement benefits for the period from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.2009 and not from his initial date of recruitment, viz., 6.6.1974. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 7.3.12 to the 1st respondents to count the service rendered by him for the period 6.6.1974 to 31.5.1991 as has been considered in the case of similarly placed persons and to grant pensionary benefits, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 4.6.12. However, no orders have been passed. It is the further case of the petitioner that though his services was in a permanent vacancy, which was regularly inspected by the official respondents, however, the service of the petitioner was considered for the purpose of grant of selection grade and special grade and other service benefits. Once again the petitioner submitted a representation on 6.11.12 and, thereafter, on 24.2.17 and since no orders have been passed on the representations, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by issuance of G.O. Ms. No.41 dated 29.4.97, the school in which the petitioner was working was made an aided institution on and from 1.6.1991 and the school was permitted to continue with the five teachers, who were on the rolls of the school even during the period the school was functioning as an recognised unaided school and such being the case, the period of the service of the petitioner in the unaided recognised institution also ought to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for the purpose of service and retirement benefits. However, the service of the petitioner from 6.6.74 to 31.5.91 has not been counted for the purpose of service and retirement benefits inspite of similarly placed persons being granted the said benefits.
4. In this ba
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
