Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P. DHANABAL, JJ.
The Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham Regional Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
S. Alavandar & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14946 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 14536 of 2023
Decided On : 11-08-2023
For the Petitioner:M. Vaidhiyanathan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, S. Alavandar, Party-in-Person R2, Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for relaxation of the pension rules in cases of undue hardship, allowing for the grant of minimum pension by rounding off service to meet the eligibility requirement.
Headnote:
Pension Rules - Eligibility for Pension - Rule 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the grant of minimum pension to the first respondent, who had completed 9 years, 6 months, and 13 days of service, falling short of the 10-year requirement for pension eligibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the appointment order and the contractual period after retirement could not be considered as service for pension purposes. However, the court referred to case law and Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allowing for relaxation of the pension rules in cases of undue hardship.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility for pension under Rule 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the applicability of Rule 88 for relaxation of the pension rules in the case of the first respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent's service period should be taken as 10 years pensionable service for the purpose of grant of pension, citing case law and Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allowing for relaxation of the pension rules in cases of undue hardship.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, directing the petitioners to invoke Rule 88 and consider the case of the first respondent for the grant of minimum pension by rounding off his service to 10 years.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent culminating in the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 in O.A.No. 332 of 2021 and quash the same.)
P. Dhanabal, J
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records challenging the order in O.A.No. 332 of 2021, dated 06.09.2022 passed by the second respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and fully financed by the Government of India. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham had called for the applications for recruitment of Teachers during, 1993. After completion of selection process, offer of appointments had been issued to the first respondent, namely, Mr.S. Alavandar, as TGT Social Studies on Direct Recruitment with the place of posting at Kendriya Vidyalaya Wellington vide Memorandum No.F.2.Estt/39.93-KVS(MR), 02.11.1993. Later, his place of posting had been changed to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatham, OCF, Avadi, vide Memorandum dated 17.11.1993. After serving 9 years, 6 months and 13 days, the first respondent retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.05.2003. As per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, a Government servant appointed in a pensionable establishment on or before 31.12.2003 and retired from Government service with a qualifying service of 10 years or more is eligible for pension. The first respondent had completed 9 years 6 months 13 days of service which cannot be considered for sanction of pension. Further, ad-hoc service put in by the first respondent will not be counted for pensionary purpose and only the regular service on record will be taken into account for consideration of pension. As per Rule 49 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the first respondent is ineligible since he is not having qualifying service for grant of pension. However, the first respondent had sent a representation dated 25.07.2017 after a lapse of several years and the same was rejected by order dated 15.05.2018. Challenging the same, the first respondent has filed in O.A.No. 332 of 2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and the same was allowed on 06.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed on the grounds that the 2nd respondent has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner, the first respondent retired from service in the year 2003 and approached the Tribunal belatedly, and failed to follow the CCS (Pension) Rules.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the first respondent has applied for the post of teacher in the year 1993 and he was selected in the month of April, 1993 and received the order of appointment on 02.11.1993. He was superannuated on 31.05.2003 on attaining the age of 60 years. The department has calculated his service period as 9 years, 6 months and 13 days and he was short of service for pension and therefore, he was not granted pension. The first respondent made several representations to the authorities concerned requesting to grant minimum pension by rounding up the fraction, the petitioners have not considered the said representations of the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent has filed in O.A.No. 315 of 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.07.2017 of the first respondent. Thereafter, vide Memorandum dated 15.05.2018 the petitioners had rejected the claim of the first respondent on the
