Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ
K.Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
For the Appellant: Mr.K.Vadivelu
For R-1 to R-5: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader
For R-6: No appearance
Eligibility for pension benefits must be based on service after official appointment approval, as per Pension Rules.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Eligibility for old pension scheme - The appellant, despite being appointed under a contributory pension scheme, argued for the benefit of the old pension scheme based on previous rulings. The court determined eligibility must adhere to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which mandate qualifying service must occur in a pensionable establishment after the date of appointment approval, not just based on prior service in private management. (Paras 2-15)
(B) Legal Precedents - Prior decisions establishing entitlement for pension based on past service were considered; however, adherence to more recent rulings prevailed, reinforcing that only services counted after approval qualify for pension benefits. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contended that his long service began before the cut-off date for the old pension scheme, yet failed to secure approval within the necessary timeframe. The court noted the pivotal distinction between initial appointment and approval date.
Findings of Court:
The entitlements must align strictly with laws governing pension eligibility; as a result, the appellant does not qualify for the old pension scheme due to the timing of his official appointment and corresponding qualifications.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around whether past service qualifies under the pension rules and the implications of government orders versus established legal provisions regarding pension benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that past service before the approved appointment cannot be counted towards pension benefits, reaffirming that pension rights are determined solely from the date of government approval as mandated by the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pension entitlement based on approval date. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding approval and pension determination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal precedence affecting pension eligibility. (Para 6 , 10) |
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the sixth respondent School on 06.12.1997. He did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post in question. However, he was a beneficiary of G.O. (Ms).No.155, School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002. He was sent for Child Psychology Training. His appointment was approved with effect from 02.06.2003. He was also placed under Contributory Pension Scheme. A separate account was opened. 15 years later, the appellant filed W.P.(MD). No.11896 of 2020 for placing him under the Old Pension Scheme. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 20.01.2023, dismissed the Writ Petition.
Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. He drew our attention to paragraph 8 of the decision of the Division Bench in the State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Pallivasal Primary School , represented by its Correspondent, Mudukulathur reported in 2004-2-L.W.591, in which, it has been stated that the past service shall count for pension while they will be entitled to monetary benefits after they acquire the Child Psychology Training. Our attention was also drawn to the order dated 21.03.2018 in W.A.(MD).Nos.74 of 2015 and 957 of 2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the said decision had made a distinction between approval and appointment and that the pension service has to be counted from the date of appointment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in many cases, such an approach had been adopted by this Court and the appellant alone cannot be left out. When the appellant was appointed in December 1997, he had to be necessarily placed under the Old Pension Scheme.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Appeal has been recently settled by a coordinate Division Bench vide order dated 10.06.2024 in W.A.Nos.1207, 1213 and 1214 of 2021 inthe Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pension) Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai and others Vs. B.Bhuvaneswari and others reported in2024: MHC :2369. He pointed out that all the contentions now urged by the learned counsel for the appellant including G.O.No.413, Finance (PGC) Department dated 04.11.2010, had been considered by the coordinate Division Bench. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal.
5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
6. At the very outset, we have to make one observation. The judgment in Pallivasal Primary School cited supra was pronounced on 02.04.2004. It is true that the Hon'ble Division Bench had held that the past service of the appointees would count for pension. Since the pension scheme, which was then in force, came to be abolished very shortly thereafter, the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench could not be pressed into service.
7. Admittedly, the appellant was placed under the Contributory Pension Scheme in the year 2006 itself. The Writ Petition was filed only in the year
2020.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant's appointment was approved only on 20.10.2005 with effect from 02.06.2003. The cut off date for coming under the Old Pension Scheme is 01.04.2003.
9. Even though there are quite a few Division Bench decisions favouring the appellant's contentions, we propose to follow the latest decision of the coordinate Division Bench vide order dated 10.06.2024 inW.A.Nos.1207, 1213 and 1214 of 2021 inthe Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pen
