Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
M. Deivasigamani - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.26013 & 26014 of 2018
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Mandamus - Pension Benefits - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules - Rule 11(4) - The court considered the eligibility of part-time vocational instructors for counting 50% of their services for pension benefits under the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The court held that part-time employees are not eligible for this benefit as per Rule 11(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The court emphasized the binding nature of the rules and the importance of following the statute while considering similar orders passed by the courts. The petitioners' appointment conditions as part-time vocational instructors were found to be binding, and they were not eligible for the benefit of counting 50% of their services for pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, part-time vocational instructors, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to count 50% of their services for the purpose of retirement benefits, including pension. They argued that their part-time services were not considered for counting qualifying services for pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as per Rule 11(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, part-time employees are not eligible for counting 50% of their services for pension benefits. The court emphasized the binding nature of the rules and held that the appointment conditions of the petitioners as part-time vocational instructors were binding, and they were not entitled to the benefit.
Issues: The main issue was whether part-time vocational instructors were eligible for counting 50% of their services for pension benefits under the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per Rule 11(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, part-time employees are not eligible for the benefit of counting 50% of their services for pensionary benefits. The court emphasized the importance of following the statute and the binding nature of the rules in determining the eligibility for pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to verify the service records of the petitioners and held that if the petitioners were appointed as part-time vocational instructors, they were not eligible for counting 50% of their services for pensionary benefits. The court disposed of the writ petitions with no costs.
ORDER :
[Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take into account 50% of the service rendered by the petitioner from initial appointment till regularization (i.e. 31.07.1987 to 31.03.1990) for the purpose of retirement benefits, including pension.]
[Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take into account 50% of the service rendered by the petitioner from initial appointment till regularization (i.e. 26.01.1989 to 11.11.1997) for the purpose of retirement benefits, including pension.]
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is for a direction to direct the respondents to count 50% of the services rendered by the petitioners in the post of Vocational Instructor and accordingly, calculate the qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits.
2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.26013 of 2018 states that he was initially appointed on 31.07.1987 as double part-time Vocational Teacher and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26014 of 2018 states that he was initially appointed on 26.01.1989 as Single part-time Vocational Teacher.
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 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. There are many Division Bench judgments in this aspect. The scope of amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules was referred to the Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench delivered a judgment on 03.12.2019, wherein the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 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 judgments, 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, who got the benefit. It is contended that near about 700 Vocational Instructors got the benefit.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 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
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.
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 the Pension Rules scrupulously for counting 50% of the services rendered by employees and the application of Article 14 only if ....
The court affirmed that part-time service can be counted for pension benefits, supporting the claim based on prior judgments.
The application of Rule 11(2) of the Pension Rules and subsequent government orders in determining pensionary benefits for part-time Panchayat Clerks.
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
