The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of pension provisions and the recognition of pension as a continuous relief/right for the employee, which should be interpreted more liberally to favor grant rather than refusal of the benefit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to set aside the order dated 05.06.2018 in W.P.No.22063 of 2016.)

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22063 of 2016 whereby the appellant's prayer to quash the record/ communication of the Accountant General/ 6th respondent dated 02.05.2016 and to further direct the 6th respondent to sanction the pension to the appellant/ writ petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.37 (School Education) dated 05.01.1983 was rejected.

2. Brief facts:

The appellant joined as a Secondary Grade Headmaster in Nehruji Aided School at Edapalayam Village, Vellore District. After serving in the above institution, the appellant resigned from service in September 1974. Subsequent to his resignation, Secretary to Government (School Education) issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1015 dated 05.06.1981 with regard to pension to staff of Non-Government Educational Institutions, teaching staff of aided and local body schools and teaching staff of aided colleges who resigned before the relevant crucial dates. The scope of the said G.O.Ms.No.1015 dated 05.06.1981 was clarified vide G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 05.01.1983.

The appellant after his resignation in September 1974, had not made any claim with regard to pensionary benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 05.01.1983 until 28.11.2005, when vide letter dated 28.11.2005, the appellant claimed pension on the basis that he had worked as Secondary Grade Teacher for over eleven and half years during the period from 1967 to September 1974. In the said communication, the appellant had stated that the claim for pension was being made on the basis of a Judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14732 of 2013 dated 19.09.2014 which was published in local dailies wherein a similarly placed Teacher from Madurai, who resigned in the year 1972, had filed a writ petition in the year 2013 claiming pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.37, and this Court was pleased to direct the concerned authorities to consider his case for pension after finding that he had resigned from service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 05.01.1983.

The 6th respondent/ Accountant General vide impugned communication dated 02.05.2016 addressed to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sholingur, Vellore District proceeded to deny the pensionary benefits to the appellant on the premise that the appellant had resigned from service in September 1974 and that resignation entails forfeiture of past service and hence pensionary benefits are not admissible.

Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that in support of the appellant's claim that he had been in service during the period from 1963 to 1974, the following documents were found during the inspection by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sholighur on 22.01.2016:

i) The Appointment order of the teacher.

ii) The School Registration of the teachers for the period from 29.04.1963 till June 1964.

iii) Remarks of the Deputy Inspector of the School Education.

iv) The document of CARE, Coimbatore under reference No.R.C.No.2C3/64, dated 01.01.1965.

v) The Record Sheets issued by Mr.E.P.Jayaraman/ appellant herein, to certain students during his period of service as Headmaster of the School. Importantly, the 6th respondent while rejecting the appellant's claim for pension has not raised any doubt about the fact that the appellant had been in service during the said period and had resigned in September 1974. The denial of pensionary benefits vide impugned communication dated 02.05.2016 was only on the premise that the appellant/ writ petitioner had resigned and that resignation would entail forfeiture of past service.

3. Aggrieved by the above order of the 6th respondent, the appellant challenged the same by way of writ petition in W.P.No.22063 of 2016. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the fo