Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
V. Murali & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Naud Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 88 & 89 of 2022
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Pension Scheme - Service Counting - G.O.Ms.No.559, G.O.Ms.No.155, W.A.No.249, 282, 448-452/02, 80/2004, W.A.(MD)No.307/2019 - The court directed the respondents to count the past service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and admit them in the Old Pension Scheme, citing various government orders and court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to count their past service and be admitted to the old Pension Scheme, citing delays and discrimination in the approval of their appointments and training.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in sending the petitioners for Child Psychology Training was caused by the respondents, and the petitioners' service should be counted from the date of their appointment for pension benefits.
Issues: Delay in training approval, discrimination in pension scheme, counting of past service for pension benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in sending the petitioners for training by the respondents cannot be used to deny the petitioners' right to count their past service for pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to count the past service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and admit them in the Old Pension Scheme within two months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:in W.P.No.88 of 2022: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to count the past service of the Petitioner from 01.08.1995 to 28.04.2006, and admit him in the old Pension scheme by extending the benefit of the order passed in W.A.No.249, 282 and 448- 452/02 and 80/2004 dated 02.04.2004 in the case of “The State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. Pallivasal Primary School” reported in 2004 (2) L.W.591 and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.413 dated 04.11.2010.
in W.P.No.89 of 2022: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to count the past service of the Petitioner from 01.03.2001 to 21.12.2007, and admit her in the old Pension scheme by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.34 dated 15.02.2017 and in the light of order passed in W.A.(MD)No.307/2019 dated 02.08.2019 in the case of “Vasanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others” reported in 2019 (4) CTC 865.)
Common order
1. (a) Writ Petition No.88 of 2022 is filed to direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to count the past service of the Petitioner from 01.08.1995 to 28.04.2006, and admit him in the old Pension scheme by extending the benefit of the order passed in W.A.No.249, 282 and 448 to 452 of 2002 and 80/2004 dated 02.04.2004 in the case of “The State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. Pallivasal Primary School” reported in 2004 (2) L.W.591 and in 3/21 W.P.Nos.88 and 89 of 2022 the light of G.O.Ms.No.413 dated 04.11.2010.
1. (b) Writ Petition No.89 of 2022 is filed to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to count the past service of the Petitioner from 01.03.2001 to 21.12.2007 and admit her in the old Pension scheme by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.34 dated 15.02.2017 and in the light of order passed in W.A.(MD)No.307 of 2019 dated 02.08.2019 in the case of “Vasanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others” reported in 2019 (4) CTC 865. 2. Since the factual matrix involved in these writ petitions are common in nature, both petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. (a) 5th Respondent school is a Non-Minority School. It is an Aided Primary School. A vacancy arose for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the school due to resignation of one Mr.S. Ramesh on 31.07.1995. The Petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu) with B.Ed. 4/21 W.P.Nos.88 and 89 of 2022 qualification vide order dated 01.08.1995 due to non-availability of Secondary Grade (Telugu) teacher. 3rd Respondent forwarded proposal to the 2nd Respondent dated 25.10.1996 requesting for exemption for G.O.Ms.No.559. The 2nd Respondent rejected the proposal by proceedings dated 21.1.1997 on the ground that the 5th Respondent school made appointment without obtaining the list from the District Employment Exchange. Further the Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 11.7.1995 the same has been challenged by way of batch of Writ Petitions. The Petitioner also filed a writ petition No.10673 of 1997 and obtained order of interim stay. Despite the Interim Order the Respondents failed to approve the appointment of the Petitioner. However, by a common order dated 19.05.1998 this Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions. The Petitioner filed W.A.No.1589 of 1998. This Court by an order dated 29.06.2001 disposed the W.A.No.991 to 998 of 1998, with direction to approve the appointment of the teachers made between 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998 on completion of one month Child Psychology Training. However, the petitioner was not sent for training though his appointment was made after G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 11.07.1995. 5/21 W.P.Nos.88 and 89 of 2022
3. (b) 3rd Respondent forwarded proposal on 29.07.2003 to the 2nd Respondent recommending the petitioner to undergo one month child psychology training. Thereafter, 3rd Respondent by proceedings dated 17.05.2004 directed the petitioner to undergo train
The date of appointment should be considered for pension benefits, and delays caused by the respondents cannot be used to deny the petitioners' rights.
Prior Division Bench rejection of service regularization bars re-litigation through pension scheme claims under res judicata.
The date of approval of appointment cannot be construed as the relevant date for considering the applicability of the pension scheme, and it is the original date of appointment that matters for deter....
A teacher's continuous service before the cut-off date of 1.4.2003 qualifies for old pension benefits despite later regularization, affirming the principle of service continuity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees appointed in fully aided posts prior to 01-11-2005 are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of the date of ....
Past services rendered by the Teachers shall be counted for pension, as established by previous judgments.
Pension scheme - Deduction of monthly salary - since the Petitioner No. 1 had been appointed prior to 1st November, 2005 and occupied a part time fully aided post i.e. receiving 100% grant-in-aid fro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be governed by a pension scheme is determined by the date of commencement of the recruitment process, and delay in appointment du....
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
