SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
The Secretary to Government (Agriculute) Puducherry & Others – Appellants
Versus
Dr. D. Adiroubane & Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1264 of 2019 & CMP No. 8632 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:R.Syed Mustafa, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, T. Sai Krishnan, R2 & R3, N. Ramesh, Advocate.

An employee of an Autonomous Body cannot claim pension without a pension scheme, and the mere belief in the existence of a pension scheme does not entitle the employee to pension as a Government employee.

Headnote:

Pension - Government Servant - Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent - The Pension Scheme of the Autonomous Institute - [PENSION] - [GOVERNMENT SERVANT] - [Office Memorandum dated 16.05.2000, Civil Appeal Nos.7682 to 7690 of 2021] - The court discussed the absence of a pension scheme in the Autonomous Institute, the employee's belief in the existence of a pension scheme, and the government's stand on pension for employees of Autonomous Bodies. The court concluded that an employee of an Autonomous Body cannot claim pension without a pension scheme, and the mere belief in the existence of a pension scheme does not entitle the employee to pension as a Government employee.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent, an employee of the Government of Puducherry, sought pension benefits after being absorbed as an Assistant Professor in an Autonomous Institute. The Writ Court directed payment of pension treating the first respondent as a Government servant till his retirement. The appellants appealed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the first respondent, though believing in the existence of a pension scheme in the Institute, cannot claim pension as a Government employee. The court also noted the negligence of the authorities in handling the issue.

Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent, being an employee of an Autonomous Institute without a pension scheme, could claim pension as a Government servant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee of an Autonomous Body cannot claim pension without a pension scheme, and the mere belief in the existence of a pension scheme does not entitle the employee to pension as a Government employee.

Final Decision: The court set aside the direction of the Writ Court for payment of pension, but directed the Government to pay pension for the services rendered by the first respondent in the Government of Puducherry, with interest for the delay in payment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 22.11.2018 made in W.P.No.33325 of 2012.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The appellants, viz. the Government of Puducherry and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture and Research Institute, Karaikal are on Appeal against the order of the Writ Court directing payment of pension treating the first respondent as a Government Servant till date of his retirement i.e. 01.09.2012, after setting aside the orders of the fourth respondent dated 13.09.2012, 28.05.2012, 10.09.2012 and the order of the Secretary to Government, Agricutural Department dated 14.02.2012.

2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

The first respondent joined as a Trainee in the Agricultural Department of Puducherry on 14.11.1973. He was promoted and posted as an Agricultural Officer on 08.09.1981 with effect from 24.06.1981. The Government of Puducherry started the second appellant Institute at Karaikal on 30.11.1987. The first respondent was deputed to serve in the said Institute from 05.11.1990 under an order of the Government dated 21.02.1991. On 11.09.1996 the first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor. He was provisionally absorbed as Assistant Professor on 20.03.1994. On 11.09.1996 orders were issued for permanent absorption of the first respondent as an Assistant Professor in Agricultural Entomology with effect from 05.11.1990. Consequent upon such absorption, the first respondent tendered his technical resignation to the Department of Agriculture of Puducherry on 26.05.1997.

3. Pursuant to such technical resignation, on 13.08.1997, the Agricultural Department of Government of Puducherry issued an office order indicating the Pro-rata retirement benefits granted to the first respondent and other Agricultural Officers who have been absorbed as Assistant Professors in the second appellant Institute. The employees were also required to exercise their option to receive the pro-rata retirement benefits in one lump sum or as monthly pension. On 13.01.1998, the first respondent sent a reply stating that he is willing to have the benefits of combined service under the Government and the second appellant Institute on the assumption that the second appellant Institute is having a pension scheme and therefore, required the Government to issue a corrigendum allowing him to exercise an option to receive the benefits of combined service. It is not in dispute that such corrigendum was not issued.

4. Though the Institute passed certain resolutions requesting the Government to allow it to have a pension scheme such resolutions were not approved by the Government of Puducherry. Thereafter, on 01.11.2001 the first respondent in fact exercised his option requiring the Government to transfer his lump sum pro-rata pension to the Dean of the second appellant Institute to be credited to his pension fund. The said request was not complied with and there was correspondence up and down between the Institute, the Department of Agriculture and the first respondent. When the first respondent was about to retire in the year 2012, he again raised the issue relating to pension and the Government of Puducherry sent a reply on 14.02.2012 stating that his request for pension would be addressed after the disposal of Writ Petition in WP No.13571 of 2011 which is pending before this Court. The said Writ Petition related to the claim for pension by the employees of the second appellant Institute.

5. Since the respondents expressed their inability to pay pension on the ground that there is no pension scheme in the Institute and the Central Government by its D.O. letter dated 16.03.2000 had made it very clear that the Autonomous Institutions under various Ministries and Departments of Government of India will continue to follow the annuity scheme through the Life Insurance Corporation of India based on the voluntary contributions of the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top