BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
B. Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamilnadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 4521 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Pensionary Benefits - Service Counting - G.O.Ms.No.155, G.O.Ms.No.413 - Past Service Counting for Pension - [Secondary Grade Teacher] - [G.O.Ms.No.155, G.O.Ms.No.413] - The court discussed the past service rendered by the petitioner before completion of Child Psychology Training and held that the past services rendered by the Teachers shall be counted for pension. The court referred to previous judgments and directed the respondents to count the service of the petitioner from 26.02.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Graduate Teacher, was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher and underwent Child Psychology Training. The petitioner sought to count his service from 26.02.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits, which was refused by the respondents. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the past services rendered by the petitioner before completion of Child Psychology Training should be counted for pension, based on previous judgments. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to count the petitioner's service from 26.02.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits.
Issues: The issue was whether the past service rendered by the petitioner before completion of Child Psychology Training should be considered for pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and held that the past services rendered by the Teachers shall be counted for pension, and this principle was applied to the present case.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to count the service of the petitioner from 26.02.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to No.AG (A&G) PEN P25/12519316/5/R2519316 dated 26.12.2018 in so far as counted 15 years 7 months alone as total length service instead of 20 years 3 month 4 days and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to include and count the petitioner''s service from 26.02.1998 to 01.06.2003 as service period along with attended benefits.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 and perused the materials available on record carefully.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Graduate Teacher with qualification of B.Com., and B.Ed., Degrees. The qualification for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher is the passing of Diploma in Teacher Education. Since no eligible candidates were available to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Respondent No.4-School on 26.02.1998. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on condition that he should not claim Graduate Teacher salary and increment for B.Com., and B.Ed. The appointment of the petitioner was not approved by Respondents No.2 and 3, as it is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1994. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.559, dated 11.07.1994 cancelling the appointments of Graduate Teachers in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in various schools during a certain period. The same was challenged in a batch of writ petitions before the Principal Seat of this Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, this Court granted stay of the operation of G.O.Ms.No.559 and several schools appointed B.Ed., teachers in Secondary Grade vacancies and such appointments were also approved and they were also paid salaries by the respondents. The said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge, as against which a batch of writ appeals were filed and a Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court, by order dated 29.06.2001, while upholding the Government Order, held that the Teachers appointed up to the date of dismissal of the writ petitions are to be given approval.
3. The learned counsel would submit that pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, Education Department, dated 03.10.2002 to send those Graduate Teachers appointed in a Secondary Grade post to the one month Child Psychology course and after such training only, appointment would be approved and the salary could be paid only with effect from the date of approval of the appointment and issued order for recovery and refixation. Aggrieved against G.O.Ms.No. 155, dated 03.10.2002, a batch of writ petitions were filed and this Court granted interim injunction in respect of the refixation and recovery of salary. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2004, disposed batch of writ petitions directing the respondents therein not to recover the salary from the persons who had already received salary and in respect of the persons who had not received salary, the Division Bench observed that the salary will be paid only from the date of completion of the Child Psychology Training and it was also observed that the past service period can be counted for pension. Aggrieved against the refixation of salary, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon''ble Apex Court and the same were dismissed.
4. The learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 03.10.2002, the petitioner underwent Child Psychology Training from 02.05.2003 to 31.05.2003. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent herein by proceedings dated 12.08.2003 approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2003.
5. The learned counsel further s
Past services rendered by the Teachers shall be counted for pension, as established by previous judgments.
Past service of unqualified Secondary Grade Teachers prior to Child Psychology Training counts for pension per Division Bench ruling.
Past service of unqualified Secondary Grade Teachers prior to Child Psychology Training completion counts for pension per Division Bench ruling.
The date of appointment should be considered for pension benefits, and delays caused by the respondents cannot be used to deny the petitioners' rights.
The past service of an appointed Secondary Grade Teacher must be counted towards pension benefits.
Resignation from a government service results in the forfeiture of previous service, as per Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, and pension benefits cannot be based on service r....
The ratification of the appointment by the Government validated the inclusion of the petitioner's service as pensionable service.
The petitioner's service from the date of appointment in the unsanctioned post could be taken into account for calculating her pensionable service, as ratified by the Government.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.