Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SESHASAYEE, P. VADAMALAI, JJ.
S. Manickam – Appellant
Versus
The Principle Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department – Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 217 of 2019
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Pension - Writ Appeal - G.O.Ms. No. 234, G.O.Ms. No. 235 - The court interpreted the applicability of pension revision orders, confirming that the petitioner, having retired post-2006, was not entitled to benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 235.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired teacher, sought pension revision under G.O.Ms. No. 235, which was denied on grounds of ineligibility as he retired after the specified date.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the lower court's decision, agreeing that the G.O.Ms. No. 235 applied only to those who retired before 01.01.2006, thus confirming the rejection of the petitioner's request.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension revision under G.O.Ms. No. 235 despite retiring after the specified date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner did not qualify as an existing pre-2006 pensioner under the relevant G.O., affirming the lower court's interpretation.
Result: The Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT :
P. VADAMALAI, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P. (MD) No. 22871 of 2018, dated 23.11.2018.
1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 22871 of 2018 challenging the order, dated 23.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition.
2. The facts are minimal and they are stated as below:
(ii) The learned Single Judge took the view that the reply 02.05.2018 sent by the 2nd respondent is correct as the G.O.Ms. No. 235 is applicable to those who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and thereby dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge is now under challenge, at the instance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that as per the G.O.Ms. No. 235, the pension and family pension was further revised with effect from 01.01.2006 to all existing pensioners and as per clause 2(ii) of the said G.O. and clause 2(vi) of the said G.O. The clause 2(vi) of the said G.O is applicable to those who retired after 01.01.2006 and also applicable to the post as on 01.01.2006. The appellant worked as a special grade teacher from 11.03.2005 and so he was in such post as on 01.01.2006. The learned Single Judge has not considered these aspects and so, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the G.O and also not ought to have appreciated the impugned reply dated 02.05.2018 of the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007 and the G.O is applicable to those retired prior to 01.01.2006 and as per G.O, the pension has to be revised from 01.01.2006, and hence the impugned reply of the 2nd respondent is correct and the order of the learned Single Judge need not be set aside.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
7. It is admitted that the appellant was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher and retired on 30.04.2007 on superannuation. It is also undisputed that as per G.O.Ms. No. 234, Finance (PC) Department dated 01.06.2009 his pension pay was revised from Rs.4,208/- to Rs.7,000/-. The appellant submitted an application seeking revision of his pension pay as per G.O.Ms. No. 235, Finance (PC) Department, dated 01.06.2009, which was returned by the 2nd respondent through a letter in P24/I/AG102/10402, dated 02.05.2018 by mentioning that the said G.O is applicable to the existing pre-2006 pensioner/family pensioner i.e., to those who had retired prior to 01.01.2006. On perusal of the G.O.Ms. No. 235, clause 2(ii) reads as follows:
The court established that pension fixation must comply with the relevant Office Memorandums and rules, affirming that pension is a right and must be calculated based on the correct interpretation of....
Pension is not a bounty but a recompense for long years of service, and the date from which the pensioner shall be entitled to the benefit of revision cannot be arbitrarily determined by the employer....
The court ruled that all pensioners, regardless of retirement date, are entitled to pension revisions, upholding equal treatment principles.
(1) A clarificatory order cannot be permitted to override an order having statutory strength.(2) Pension – Once appellants migrate into Rules guiding other State Government employees, appellants’ ser....
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The legal principle established is that pension revisions must be considered in a timely manner as per applicable government orders, and failure to do so can result in judicial intervention to enforc....
Pension for UGC scale teachers must be calculated based on revised pay from the date of retirement, not delayed by government policy.
Pensioners retiring before 01.01.2006 are not entitled to benefits applicable to later retirees; pension must not be lower than 50% of minimum pay in the pay band.
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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
