Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20990
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.V.Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Resignation due to ill-health must not result in forfeiture of pension rights, ensuring equitable treatment for all resigning employees under pension rules.
Headnote:
Pension - Resignation - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Section 23 - The court examined the provisions of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, highlighting the need for fair treatment of employees resigning due to ill-health, equating them with those who resign for other reasons when determining pension eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner resigned due to personal health issues and his daughter's accident. His resignation was initially rejected, then accepted, leading to a challenge against the denial of pensionary benefits citing Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's resignation due to ill-health impacts his eligibility for pensionary benefits under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Ratio Decidendi: Employees resigning due to health issues should be treated equitably under pension rules, similar to those resigning for other valid reasons, preventing discrimination under Article 14.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, directing pension benefits to be paid to the petitioner.
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
14.12.2012 in No.1333/1/SC/Pen/8695 whereby the petitioner's request for considering his case for grant of pensionary benefit on account of service rendered prior to his resignation was rejected, as not being feasible inasmuch as it was not in compliance with Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978 which provides that resignation would result in forfeiture of his service.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was selected as Junior Assistant and was alloted to NCC Department for appointment as Junior Assistant by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vide its letter dated 17.12.1996. The petitioner was accordingly appointed and posted at 4 (TN) Bn NCC, Coimbatore by the second respondent dated 03.02.1997 and he joined duty on 26.02.1997. Consequently, the petitioner completed his probation and also passed required departmental examination. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 20.09.2000. The petitioner was then transferred to 2 (TN) Bn, NCC, Coimbatore by the second respondent vide order dated
15.06.2005 and he joined duty on 23.06.2005.
3. Whileso, the petitioner's daughter met with an accident on
09.08.2008 resulting in blood clot in his daughter's head. He was thus compelled to take care of his daughter and it is submitted that the petitioner's health also deteriorated and he suffered from hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The petitioner also underwent Appendicitis surgery on 31.08.2009. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted his resignation vide letter dated 20.11.2009 wherein he had submitted that in view of the frequent hospitalization of his daughter for medical treatment besides his failing health, he was unable to focus and carry out his duty to his own satisfaction as well as of his superiors. Therefore, he tendered his resignation from the post of Assistant in 2 (TN) Battery NCC Coimbatore with effect from 20.11.2009 (FN). The said resignation was however rejected by the second respondent vide communication dated 30.03.2010 on the premise that the resignation is not in confirmity with Rule 41-A of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. However, the very same authority had thereafter accepted the petitioner's resignation after finding as under:
“3. His case has been examined with reference to relevant Rules of General Rules in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and is found to be in order. The undersigned accordingly accepts the above application of the Individual as notice as required under the above Rule.
4. It is certified that:-
(a) No disciplinary case is pending or contemplated against the individual.
(b) No prosecution is contemplated or pending in a Court of Law against the individual.
(c) No dues are pending to be recovered by the Government from the above individual.
5. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai 28 vide his letter (b) cited has reported that no inquiry is contemplated or pending against the above named individual.
6. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby orders that the resignation of Mr.T.V.Narayanan, Assistant is deemed to have been accepted with effect from 20 Nov 2009 FN and he is relieved from Government service accordingly.”
4. The petitioner submitted a representation vide letter dated
19.11.2012 wherein reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench and requested to consider the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The same was rejected vide proceeding dated 14.12.2012 relied upon Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978 while stating that as a consequence of his resignation, service rendered by the petitioner prior to resignation stood forfeited. The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceeding dated 14.12.2012.
5. It is submitted by Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 that the impugned order does not warrant interference and further
