S. Manikumar, J.@mdash1. Instant appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 18426 of 2014, dated 09.04.2015, by which, the Writ Court has directed payment of conveyance allowance with effect from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010.
2. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:--
"The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13.02.2009 and accordingly, he joined duty in Government Higher Secondary School, Kalappal, Thiruvarur District. According to him, vide G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, the Government have granted conveyance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month to the differently abled persons. In the year 2010, vide G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010, conveyance allowance has been enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 300/-. Coming to know of the abovesaid Government Order, the respondent made a representation to the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Salaigramam, Sivagangai District, who in turn, has forwarded the same to the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, 3rd appellant herein. In consultation with the Director of School Education, Chennai, 2nd appellant herein, request of the respondent was considered and conveyance allowance has been granted from 19.09.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed W.P(MD) No. 18426 of 2014 for a Mandamus, directing the Director of School Education, Chennai and Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai, appellants 2 and 3 respectively, to provide conveyance allowance to him, from the date of his appointment, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010."
3. Adverting to the pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court partly allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay conveyance allowance to the respondent from 01.10.2010 till August 2014, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Being aggrieved by the same, instant appeal has been filed.
4. Assailing the correctness of the order made by the Writ Court, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, all the Heads of Departments were authorised to sanction conveyance allowance, in terms of the abovesaid G.O. He further submitted that as per the said G.O., the Government Servant should apply for grant of conveyance allowance to the Heads of the Departments, who in turn would refer the cases of the concerned employees, to the appropriate medical authorities for obtaining recommendation for grant of conveyance allowance. He further submitted that conveyance allowance shall be granted with effect from the date of recommendation of the concerned medical authority.
5. Inviting the attention of this Court to the date on which, the respondent applied, learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that when the respondent applied for conveyance allowance only on 19.09.2014, enclosing a medical certificate dated 30.01.2014, as per G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, he would be entitled to such conveyance allowance only from 19.09.2014, the date on which he applied and not for the earlier period. It is also his contention that G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, makes it obligatory on the part of the Heads of the Departments to pay conveyance allowance only on the Government Servants, applying for the same and after the recommendation of medical authorities. He also contended that the Writ Court has failed to consider the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989 and in the abovesaid circumstances, prayed that the order impugned in this appeal requires interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 445, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998, shows that Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 203, Finance (PC) Department, dated 16.03.1993, enhancing the maximum limit of conveyance allowance from Rs. 50/- per month to Rs. 75/- per month. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms. No. 414, Finance (PC) Department, dated 31.07.1997, the Government have constituted an Official Committee, to examine the extension of revised Central Scales of Pay to State Government Employees. Among other things, the Official Committee has recommended for enhancement of the maximum limit of conveyance allowance from Rs. 75/- per month to Rs. 150/- per month. Accepting the recommendations, the Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 445, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998. Subsequently, on the basis of the recommendations of the Official Committee constituted in G.O.Ms. No. 358, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 20.08.2008, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 236, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, granting allowance under various heads, which includes enhancement of conveyance allowance to the Orthopaedically Handicapped employees from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/-. Subsequently, the Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010, increasing the conveyance allowance from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 1,000/- per month.
7. Material on record discloses that the respondent has been appointed on 13.02.2009. Though there is no document to indicate that the respondent was appointed as against a post, earmarked for differently abled person, perusal of the disability certificate enclosed in the typed set of papers shows that the respondent has 60% disablement, which is not disputed by the appellants. At paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit to the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that only when he came to know that he was eligible for conveyance allowance, he made a representation to the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Salaigramam, Sivagangai District, and vide proceedings dated 22.09.2014, the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, has sanctioned conveyance allowance from 19.09.2014 onwards.
8. Contention of the writ petitioner, in the supporting affidavit that on coming to know about the Government order, granting conveyance allowance, he made a representation, has not been disputed by the appellants. There is no averment in the counter affidavit of the appellants that G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, was displayed in the school, in which, the respondent worked in 2010, nor any material has been placed before the Writ Court, to prove that the Education Department had taken steps to direct the school to affix in the Notice Board of the school or communicated the substance of the G.O to the petitioner or similarly placed differently abled persons, eligible to seek for conveyance allowance, so as to enable them to apply to the Heads of the Departments, through the competent authority. Unless and until the Government order is communicated to the differently abled persons or suitable instructions are issued by the Heads of Departments, it would not facilitate the beneficiaries/differently abled persons to make any claim for conveyance allowance. Needless to state that many Government orders issued from time to time, granting benefits, do not reach the beneficiaries.
9. The writ petitioner has joined the education department in 2009. Had the department made known G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010, to all the differently abled persons, including the writ petitioner, he would have certainly made a request and considering the fact that he suffers 60% disablement, there would not have been any hindrance in granting conveyance allowance, from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010. Needless to state that in September 2014, when the writ petitioner made a request for conveyance allowance, his case has been forwarded by the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Salaigramam, Sivagangai District, vide letter in Na.Ka. No. 99/2014, dated 15.09.2014, and within 7 days, the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, vide proceedings in Mu.Mu. No. 6304/A2/2014, dated 22.09.2014, has sanctioned the conveyance allowance. The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, in his proceedings dated 22.09.2014 has further directed the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Salaigramam, Sivagangai District, to make entries in the Service Register of the petitioner. Disentitlement to claim conveyance allowance in G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989 is that it should not be paid during leave (except casual leave) joining time or suspension and it is not admissible to one eyed employee.
10. As stated supra, nowhere in the counter affidavit, the appellants have stated that G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989 was made known to the writ petitioner and still he failed to seek for conveyance allowance. On the contra, appellants have reiterated the pleadings of the respondent that he was unaware of the allowances and never approached the appellants, for conveyance allowance till the month of September 2014.
11. When the Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 667, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989, the same should have been made known to the beneficiaries. Blaming one of the beneficiaries, like the petitioner, on the ground that he did not apply for grant of conveyance allowance to the Head of the Department, cannot be countenanced, unless and until, it is communicated the very object of providing assistance to the differently abled would be defeated.
12. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider the directive principles of State Policy in particular Article 41 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:--
''''41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases. The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.''''
13. Dealing with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, one of us (Justice S. MANIKUMAR), in A. Rajendran v. Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd., [W.P. No. 14040 of 2005, dated 02.07.2012], at Paragraph 28 of the judgment, held as follows:
"28. Looking at the scope and language of the Act, this Court is of the view that the Parliament has intended retrospectively in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. While giving effect to a beneficial legislation, particularly, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, this Court is of the view that there should not be any inhibition against retrospective construction. When a new law has been made to cure the malady of the have-nots, i.e., disabled and bring them in the main stream and when the enactment is for a specific class of persons, for the benefit of the said community as a whole, whether by birth or due to an accident, then by necessary application, the Statute has to be given retrospective operation. Retrospective construction of the Act is permissible, because of certain things, which occurred prior to the passing of the Act, a person becomes disabled and discriminated. When the barrier or obstacle on account of disablement, the inequalities and discrimination are sought to be removed by way of a beneficial legislation and when the object of the Act specifically states removal of discrimination, then, this Court is of the view that the construction of the Statute should be retrospective and the disqualification from taking the benefit of past services, has to be removed. Otherwise, the disqualification, on account of disablement occurred, prior to the Act, would continue, even after the enactment and it does not to rehabilitation. It is a cardinal principle of law that the very law designed, i.e., Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate it. By reason of the given statutory enactment, the provision of the statute can be given retrospective effect and retroactive operation, and that the same would not be ultra vires of the Constitution. If the Act has to be interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent, then it would be a bare mechanical interpretation and that the same would render the legislation otiose."
14. On the aspect, as to how, law has to be applied, few decisions are considered hereunder:
"(i) In The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Anr. v. Ramjee reported in , AIR 1977 SC 965, the Supreme Court, has observed as follows:
"(1) ...Judges must never forget that every law has a social purpose and engineering process without appreciating which justice to the law can not be done...."
(5) ...Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void. Its functional fulfilment as social engineering depends on its sensitized response to situation, subject-matter and the complex of realities which require ordered control. A holistic understanding is simple justice to the meaning of all Legislations...."
(9) ...To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul of the Regulation. The judicial key to construction is the composite perception of the deha and dehi of the provision...."
(ii) The Apex Court, while interpreting the provisions of Employees'' State Insurance Act, in Transport Corporation of India v. Employees'' State Insurance Corporation and Anr., reported in , AIR 2000 SC 238), at Paragraph 24, held as follows:
"Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment...."
(iii) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Savita Sen reported in , 2004 ACJ 2134, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, held as follows:
"9. Thus, the provisions of a beneficial legislation are to be interpreted in a manner which helps in achieving the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature by enacting the said law and also advances the cause of justice."
15. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is a beneficial enactment. Though some of the judgments, which we now considered, lay down the principles of law, as to how, a beneficial enactment should be construed and interpreted, we are of the view that the same principles can be applied to a Government Order, extending benefits to a differently abled person, as the Government Order is in consonance with the constitutional objective.
16. When assistance in the form of conveyance allowance is sought to be provided to differently abled persons, by payment of conveyance allowance apart from others, the Government is expected to be proactive in achieving the constitutional objectives, to reach the difficulty, instead, it should not expect the difficulty to make a request, whenever beneficial schemes are announced and implemented. The Government should be pragmatic in their approach.
17. Keeping in mind the directive principles of state policy, this Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to conveyance allowance from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010. There is no manifest error in the order of the Writ Court extending the benefit from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 391, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 07.10.2010. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD) No. 2818 of 2016 is closed.
