Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R.Gnanasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WP Nos.3277, 3281, 3284, 3289, 3292, 3295, 3297, 3302, 3304 and 3309 of 2019
Decided on : 24-11-2022
Pensionary Benefits - Part-time Vocational Instructors - Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules - 11(2)(i) - Full Bench upheld the Rule 11(4) - Part-time employees not eligible for counting 50% of services - Courts bound to consider Statute and Rules - Appointment conditions binding on part-time employees - Judicial review not to alter appointment conditions - Petitioners not eligible for counting 50% of services
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, part-time Vocational Instructors, sought direction for counting their part-time services for grant of pensionary benefits. Conflicting judgments were passed regarding the eligibility of part-time employees for the benefit under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that part-time employees are not eligible for counting 50% of services as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Appointment conditions are binding, and judicial review cannot alter them. The petitioners, having accepted part-time terms, are not eligible for the benefit of full-time employees.
Issues: Eligibility of part-time Vocational Instructors for counting 50% of services under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Appointment conditions are binding on employees, and part-time employees are not eligible for the benefit of full-time employees as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Final Decision: The petitioners, being part-time Vocational Instructors, are not eligible for counting 50% of services for grant of pensionary benefits.
ORDER :
The relief sought for in all these writ petitions is for a direction to direct the respondents to take into account of the services rendered by these writ petitioners in the post of Vocational Instructors and accordingly, calculate their qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits.
2. The writ petitioners in WPs No.3277, 3289, 3295 and 3297 of 2019 state that they were initially appointed on 26.11.1983, 04.07.1984, 04.10.1989, 16.08.1988 respectively as Single Part-time Vocational Teachers and subsequently converted as Double Part-time Vocational Teacher on 12.12.1983, 26.03.1986. The writ petitioners in WPs 3281, 3284, 3292, 3302, 3304 and 3309 of 2019 state that they were initially appointed as Double Part-time Vocational Teachers on 06.10.1986, 15.07.1985, 15.09.1980, 22.08.1988, 27.06.1990 and 24.10.1983 respectively.
3. Considering the long services, the Government passed orders, regularizing the services of these Part-time Vocational Instructors in the sanctioned post and they were brought under the regular establishment with effect from 01.04.1990. Thereafter, the writ petitioners are working as regular Vocational Instructors.
4. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the Part-time services rendered by them as Part-time Vocational Instructors has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits and thus, they have approached the authorities for counting of 50% of the services as per the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Since the claim of the writ petitioners were not considered, they have approached this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the claim of the Part-time Vocational Instructors and granted the relief for counting of 50% of the services.
6. More than one Division Bench judgments are delivered in this aspect. The scope of amended Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules was referred to the Full Bench of this in the case of Secretary to Government and two others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy [decided on 03.12.2019 in W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc batch of cases], wherein the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was upheld and whoever is complying with the conditions stipulated in the amended Rule alone are eligible for counting of 50% of the services for grant of pensionary benefits.
7. Subsequently, another Division Bench passed an order on 13.08.2020 in W.A.(MD).No.517 of 2020, referring the Full Bench judgment, rejected the appeal filed by the Education Department.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the relief was granted to several Part-time Vocational Instructors and therefore, the petitioners are also to be treated on par with other Part-time Vocational Instructors.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents to 1 to 4 in all these writ petitions, objected the said contention by stating that the Part-time Vocational Instructors are not eligible to avail the benefit under the amended Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, since their initial appointment was to the post of Part-time Vocational Instructor and part-time services are not covered under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. At one point of time, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court fixed a cut-off date on 06.04.2018 and held that anybody approaching the Court thereafter, is not entitled for the relief. However, the other Division Bench considered the case based on the earlier judgments and granted the relief subsequently in the year 2020.
10. Therefore, an anomalous situation is created, whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules or not. When conflicting judgments are placed and reliefs-are granted to one group of people and it was declined to other group through various judgments, then this Court is
Appointment conditions are binding, and part-time employees are not eligible for the benefit of full-time employees as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that part-time employees, such as vocational instructors, are not eligible for counting 50% of their services for pension benefits as per Rule 11(2....
The application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and subsequent government orders in determining pensionary benefits for part-time Panchayat Clerks.
Employees absorbed into regular substantive posts prior to 2003 are entitled to count 50% of their past part-time service toward qualifying pensionary service, and the State cannot arbitrarily exclud....
Employees absorbed into regular service before 2003 after holding part-time or consolidated roles are entitled to count 50% of their past part-time service towards pensionable service qualifying time....
Employees absorbed into regular service prior to 2003 after serving as part-time instructors are legally entitled to have 50% of their past part-time service counted for pensionary benefits, consiste....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and the Full Bench Judgement in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits.
Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, and if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a group of individuals, others can....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the phrase 'job involving whole time employment' in Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules should be interpreted broadly to include part-t....
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
