Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
D. Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. No. 21868 of 2014, M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 15-11-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES : R.9, R.9(2)
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - The second respondent's unilateral decision to alter the petitioner's date of birth without notice violated principles of natural justice, rendering the order unjustified. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated before retirement for them to continue post-retirement, as established in prior judgments. (Paras 25, 26)
For the Appellant : A.E. Ravi Chandran
For the Respondent: C. Jayaprakash
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observation on service records (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. court's observation on re-employment (Para 19 , 20) |
| 3. court's reasoning on disciplinary proceedings (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. court's ruling on the writ petition (Para 34) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 03.08.2010 and seeking a consequential direction to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor (Economics) by the order of the second respondent dated 23.11.1982 and he joined in the third respondent college on 02.12.1982. His services were regularized with effect from 16.12.1988. Pursuant to the declaration of probation effective from 15.12.1990 and based on the order of the second respondent dated 21.09.1996, the petitioner's post was re-designated from Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) to Associate Professor in the year 2006.
3. As per the service register, the petitioner's date of birth is recorded as07.07.1952, and he was scheduled to retire from service on 31.07.2010 upon completing 58 years of age. Since he was eligible for re-employment for the balance of the academic year, i.e. from 01.08.2010 to 31.05.2011, he applied for re-employment. The third respondent institution submitted a proposal to the first respondent for reappointing the petitioner from 01.08.2010.
4. At this stage, the second respondent, doubting that there is some overwriting in the date of birth entry in the petitioner's SSLC certificate, decided to verify the same. Consequently, the second respondent communicated with the District Educational Officer, Villupuram, to ascertain the actual date of birth of the petitioner.
5. In turn, the Headmaster of Mambazhapattu Government Higher Secondary School submitted a report certifying the petitioner's date of birth as 07.06.1951, which was forwarded by the District Educational Officer, Villupuram. Upon receiving these reports, the second respondent concluded that there had been a manipulation in the date of birth and determined that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 07.06.1951 and therefore the petitioner ought to have retired in the previous year itself.
6. In view of the same, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 03.08.2010, rejected the petitioner's request for re-employment and continuation in service after 01.08.2010 till the end of the academic year. However, it was also observed that the petitioner is allowed to retire with effect from 31.07.2010, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the second respondent directed the third respondent college not to disburse the terminal benefits till further orders are issued.
7. Subsequently, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 10.11.2010, directed the third respondent to sanction provisional pension based on G.O.108 dated 16.02.1983, without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings. Assailing the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
8. Mr.A.E.Ravi Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had in fact reached the age of Superannuation as on 31.07.2010. Until the date of superannuation, no charge memo was issued to the petitioner in respect of any delinquencies. Furthermore, even till date no such proceedings or charges have been issued against him.
9. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was provided employment based solely on the verification of the certificates submitted by him. On the basis of this certificate, the petitioner has rendered 25 years of service in the third respondent's college. When the petitioner applied for re-employment after 01.08.2010 to continue until the end of the academic year, the impugned orders were issued.
10. It was further argued that the second respondent, unilaterally and without iss
