Pensionary benefits apply to individuals who resigned before the crucial date of 05.06.1981 under certain regulations.

Order

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the first respondent in Letter No. 22176 / Pa.Ka 6 (2) / 2020-5 dated 04.09.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pass necessary orders sanctioning the pensionary benefits to Thiru. K.C. Sadhasivam till his death i.e. 01/07/2023 and settle the arrears of pension to the petitioner and thereafter family pension to the petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband deceased K.C.Sadhasivam had joined the services of the 5^th respondent-institution on 01.07.1963 as an Attender. His services were also subsequently regularised. The 5^th respondent-School is an aided school. His post was later re-designated as Record Clerk and he had worked continuously till 22.07.1978. Thereafter, on account of his ill-health, he was unable to attend the work and had submitted his resignation in the year 1980.

Therefore, he had requested the institution to settle his terminal benefits.

3. The petitioner would submit that after his health had improved, he had made a representation dated 23.10.1999 to respondents 4 and 5 requesting them to take action and submit necessary proposals to get pensionary benefits as he had rendered more than 15 years of regular service as on 22.07.1978. Though the petitioner’s husband had remained absent from duty, no action or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. She had submitted a representation to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell on 23.08.2001 which was forwarded to the 3^rd respondent for necessary action.

4. The 5^th respondent had admitted that the petitioner’s husband had worked in the school from 03.07.1963 to 22.07.1978 but stated that the service register was not available. The 2^nd respondent had also instructed the 4^th respondent by proceedings dated 07.03.2002 to take necessary action after getting pension proposal from the school. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent School reported that since the petitioner has resigned his job, he was not entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner would submit that the 5^th respondent school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulations Act and the Rules framed therein.

5. The petitioner would submit that her husband had not tendered any resignation as there is no order accepting such resignation in terms of Rule 17-A. Though there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against her husband and only with an intent to avoid paying the benefits to him, the respondents had denied the pensionary benefits. The petitioner’s husband had filed W.P.No.29929 of 2006 for considering his representation and by order dated 02.02.2010, this Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on his representation.

6. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the 1^st respondent had passed orders on 23.02.2011 stating that the petitioner’s husband, who had resigned from service, is not entitled to avail pension. This was challenged by the petitioner’s husband in W.P.No.33944 of 2013 and by order dated 13.07.2020, the Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the pension every month along with arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the said order had not been complied with. Against this order, the respondents 1 to 4 preferred W.A.No.1129 of 2020. The appeal was disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the proposal and pass orders. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed reiterating the earlier stand that the petitioner’s husband had retired on 01.04.1972 and G.O.Ms.No.1015 dated 05.06.198