@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.@mdashThe Petitioner, aged 66 years, worked as a Junior Instructor in Sankar Polytechnic College, a Government aided technical educational institution, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District from 07.7.1965 to 14.9.1975 and resigned his job with effect from 13.9.1975. He, having more than ten years of pensionable service, approached the Respondents for sanction of pension through the Head of the Institution, viz. Principal, Shankar Nagar Polytechnic, Tirunelveli. The Principal, after verification of the service records and Registers, recommended for the payment of pension to the Petitioner and submitted the proposal. The first Respondent also forwarded the same to the third Respondent''s office on 26.5.2006 for approval. The recommendation of third Respondent reads as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
From To The Commissioner of The Principal Technical Education Accountant General Guindy (A&E), 361,Annasalai Chennai 600 025. Chennai 600 018. Lr. No. 46224/S3/2005 dated 26.5.2006. ---
Sir,
Sub: Pension-Aided Technical Education
Institutions-Pension Proposal-
Thiru R. Nandakumar, Junior
Instructor Resigned on 13.9.1975-
forwarded/
Ref:1.G.O. Ms. No. 1015 Edu. Dept. dt.
5.6.1981.
I forward herewith the pension proposal of Thiru R. Nandhakumar former Junior Instructor, Sankar Polytechnic College, Tirunelveli who resigned on 13.9.1975. He rendered service in this institution from 07.07.1965 to 13.9.1975. I request you to authorize the payment of pensionary benefits to Thiru.R. Nandhakumar from 14.9.1975 under intimation to this office.
I also enclose Service Book of Thiru R. Nandhakumar for your perusal.
The authorization of drawal of DCRG may kindly be marked to Pay and Accounts Officer (South) Chennai 35. The receipt of this letter together with the enclosures may kindly be acknowledged early.
Encl: 1. Pension proposal
2. Service Book I Volume Sd/-
For Commissioner of
Technical Education
Copy to:
The Principal, Sankar Polytechnic
College, Sankar Nagar (Post)
Tirunelveli 627 357
R. Nandha Kumar
18/2, Kaveri Society Scheme No. 12
Yamunanagar
Nigadi, Pune 411 044.
Spare 1."
However, the third Respondent rejected the claim stating that the Petitioner having resigned from the post is not eligible to get pension. On 12.9.2006, the Petitioner submitted a representation to reconsider the decision by the second Respondent which reads as follows: "From Sub: Pension Proposal-Returned
Sri R. Nandakumar PUNE 411027
A-2, B-105, Ginger Dt.12 Sept 2006
Pimplesaudagar
To ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
O/O A.G''s Office, Chennai 18.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Pension Proposal-Returned
Ref: Pension 25/4250527/06-07/ADK
I was a bit shocked and disappointed to receive a letter informing that I am not eligible for pensionary benefits. I understand that when I go thro'' G.O. No. 37 read with G.O. No. 1015, certain clauses are admissible to me by which I get my eligibility. Hence I may please be permitted to explain my stand as below and request you to kindly consider my case and issue orders for my pension soon, so that I enjoy the benefits atleast during the fag end of my life.
Sl. No. Government Order No. and Date
Interpretation
1
Point 6(ii) GO 1015 5.6.81 Pension can be sanctioned even in cases where the incumbents had resigned since they could not have foreseen institution pension scheme at the time they received I did not foresee my institutional pension scheme and so I resigned on 13.09.75.
2
G.O. No. 1196 15th July 75. Point No. 2. At the time the teacher resigned, no one could have foreseen any pension scheme. I knew no such scheme when I resigned
3
G.O.37 01.01.75 Point No. 4: Even in case of resignation after the crucial dates, Govt. Have allowedretirement benefits to resigned teachers also. My case also may be considered on that basis.
4
Point No. 8: Need be allowed pension only from 05.06.81 and that no arrears need be allowed. For theperiod prior to 5.6.81. Though I had resigned in 1975, my benefits may be considered from 5.6.81 onwards.
5
Top Para: Clarificatory orders were issued for eligibility for pension on 5.6.81 for resigned teachers ofAided Technical Education.I resigned on 13.09.75 and I am eligible tog et pension from 5.6.81.
Sir, when I meet the basis requirement of minimum 10 ears of satisfactory service, how can I be rejected outrightly from pensionary benefits?
Once again put up to you for kind consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(R. Nandakumar)
Enclosures: 1) Copy of your letter
2) G.O. Order references
CC: 1. Commissioner of Tech. Education,
Guindy, Chennai
2. Principal, Sankar Polytechnic College, Sankarnagar.
On 13.2.2007, the second Respondent gave a reply which reads as follows:
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A&E)TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI 600 018
PENSION 25/I/urg414/06-07/367dt.13/2/07
To
Sri.R. Nandakumar
A-2, B-105, Ginger
Pimplesandagar
Pune 411027
Sir,
Sub: Pension/Family Pension of
Shri.R. Nandakumar
Ref: 1. Your letter dated 12.9.2006
I am returning the representation cited in the reference. You are requested to contact your department concerned.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER.
It is relevant to note that the first Respondent, on 26.5.2006 has already sent the proposal to sanction pension to the Petitioner, which reads as follows:
Proceedings of the F.A. & Chief Accounts
Officer, Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai 25.
----
Proc. No. 46224/S3/05 Dated:26.5.2006
----------------------- -------------------
Sub: Pension-Aided Technical Education
Institution-Pension proposal-Thiru
R. Nandhakumar, Junior Instructor-
Sanction of Pensionary benefits-
Orders-Regarding.
Ref: 1. From the Principal, Sankar
Polytechnic college, Sankarnagar
Lr. No. C1/Pension/392/05 dt. 10.4.2006.
2.G.O. Ms. No. 1015/Edu. Dept.
dt.5.6.1981.
-----------
The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai 25 having satisfied himself that the services of Thiru.R. Nandhakumar, Junior Instructor, Sankar Polytechnic College, Sankarnagar, who resigned on 13.9.1975 Afternoon have been thoroughly satisfactory, hereby orders the grant of following Pensionary benefits which may be accepted by the Accountant General as admissible under the rules.
1. Pension ... Rs. 37 p.m.
2. Gratuity Rs.2225
3. Enhanced Rate Rs.37/-
of Family pension (upto 13.9.1982)
This order is subject to condition that if the above pensionary benefits as admitted by the Accountant General be afterwards found to be in excess of amount as per rules he will be called upon to refund such excess.
It is certified that Thiru R. Nandhakumar has rendered satisfactory services of 10 years 02 months 06 days.
Sd/- V. Thanapal
P.A. & Chief Accounts Officer
To
Thiru R. Nandhakumar
18/2, Kaveri Society Scheme No. 12, Yamuna Nagar, Nigadi
Pune 411 044.
Copy to: The Principal
Sankar Polytechnic College
Tirunelveli 627 357.
The Accountant General (A&E)
361, Annasalai, Chennai 18.
Spare.
Sd/-
for Financial Adviser and
Chief Accounts Officer
Department of Technical
Edn, Chennai 600 025.
Hence, the second Respondent is not justified in sending a reply dated 13.2.2007. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the rejection order and consequently, to direct the second Respondent to grant pension to him.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent submitted that the said judgment may not apply to this case. Even though Division Bench passed an order, subsequently, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 123, School Education Department dated 07.8.2002, granting relaxation of the rigour of the rule to implement the order of this Court and even assuming that the Petitioner is entitled to get any relief regarding sanction of pension, it is only after getting relaxation from the Government, particularly Rule 12(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, corresponding Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
4. In
On the other hand, Ms. Vaigai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent teacher supported the judgment and pointed out that it would be travesty to hold that the persons who had resigned before 1.4.1955 were entitled to the pension whereas those persons who had put in the minimum pensionable service and thereafter had resigned would be deprived of the pensionary benefits. The learned Counsel argues that under Rule 12(a) of the Rules which have been framed by the Government for introducing this scheme though the teacher who has resigned is not included yet the teacher who has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment has been included at Rule 12(a)(vi). The learned Counsel, therefore, points out that it will be a great travesty that a teacher who has been discharged on account of compulsory retirement as a measure of punishment would be entitled to the pension while a teacher who has honourably resigned after serving for a minimum period of pensionable service would not be entitled to the same. The learned Counsel, therefore, supports the judgment of the learned single Judge.
5. There is no doubt that under Rule 12, there is no entitlement of pensionary benefits to a teacher who has actually resigned from the service. However, our attention is invited to the copy of G.O. Ms. No. 37, dated 5.1.1983 and more particularly to paragraphs 6 and 7 therein, which are self-explanatory and hence are being quoted by us. They are as follows: "6. As regards "those who retired before the crucial dates" in the case of Non-teaching staff etc. who were given Pension benefits from 5.6.1981, there are specific general instructions in para 6 of G.O. No. 1015, 5.6.1981 permitting the allowing of pension to "Resigned" persons also; but there are no such general instructions permitting the allowing of pension to "Resigned" teachers (who were given pension benefits from 1.3.68 as per G.O. Ms. No. 1505/24.9.1968). Orders are however being issued in individual cases of such teachers who had "resigned" before the crucial dates. In this context, the Accountant General has asked for a clarification on the following two points:
(i) Whether it is the intention of the Government to allow pension to all the teaching staff of Aided and Local Body Schools and Teaching Staff of Aided College who had "Resigned" from service prior to the respective crucial date/dates of the respective Government Order introducing pensionary benefits?
(ii) and if so, whether they are eligible to draw pension from 1.3.1968 with reference to Government Order Ms. No. 1505, Edn., dated 24.9.1968 read with Government Memo No. 21344/E.6/68-5, Edn., dated 18.11.1968.
6. The Government now clarify point (i) above in the affirmative-i.e., the staff in question may be sanctioned pension by the respective authorities competent to sanction pension (without the need for any specific orders of any higher authority or of Government condoning the "resignation" in each individual case)."
7. It is therefore clear that a teacher who has resigned even after the crucial dates can be sanctioned pension by the respective authorities competent to sanction pension even without any specific orders from the higher authorities or of the Government condoning the resignation in each individual case. This would clinch the issue in favour of the Respondent teacher and we find that the learned single Judge has also relied on the aforementioned Government Order, G.O. Ms. No. 37. This is apart from the fact that even the language of the Government Order dated 5.6.1981 and more particularly of paragraph 6(ii) cannot be interpreted so as to oust the teachers who have resigned after the introduction of the Pension Scheme. The provision has to be interpreted as giving a concession even to the persons who have resigned earlier to the institution of the said Pension Scheme. We need not go into that aspect because G.O. Ms. No. 37 is more than clear. Therefore, we confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are told that there is a stay in the matter. We direct the Government to finalise the pension of the Respondent teacher within three months from today."
8. The Government filed SLP in SLP (Civil) No. 22469 of 2001, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.01.2002. The said order of the Division Bench was implemented by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 123, School Education Department dated 07.8.2002 by granting relaxation of Rule by G.O.(2D) No. 13 dated 09.4.2002.
9. In the light of the above submission and decision of the Division Bench cited above, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation before the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said authority is directed to consider such representation of the Petitioner, in the light of the Division Bench judgment in
