1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.333 of 2011 & M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 The Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu Office 361, Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 : Appellant/Petitioner vs. 1 S. Sankaran 2 The District Educational Officer Cheranmahadevi Office @ S.N. High Road Tirunelveli 627 006 : Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 30.08.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.7510 of 2010. Praying in W.P. (MD) No.7510 of 2010: Praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondnet in legal call RTI/2009-10 dated 11/01/10 and direct the Ist respondent to consider the petitioner's pension claim from 02/08/1964 and pay 18% compound interest to arrears amount. For appellant : Mr. P. Gunasekaran For R1 : Mr.S.Sankaran, Party in Person JUDGMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 30.08.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.7510 of 2010. 2. The facts leading to this case are that the first respondent/writ petitioner served as a Weaving Instructor with effect from 16.05.1954 to 01.08.1964 in the Hindu Higher Elementary School, Karukuruchi; however, he resigned his post; on his resignation, he was also relieved from duty; consequence of this, he was not given the pensionary benefits; after making representation, he filed the above said writ petition and the same was allowed by order dated 30.08.2010; as against the same, the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements), the first respondent in the writ petition has filed the present writ appeal. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as far as teachers are concerned, though they were not brought into pensionable establishment earlier, in the year 1955, they were brought into pensionable establishment; consequence of this, G.O. Ms. No.37, Education Department dated 05.01.1983 was issued as per which if any teacher has resigned prior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to the introduction of pensionary benefits, he is eligible for pensionary benefits; as far as the first respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, he had resigned his post after the introduction of pensionary benefits to teachers; consequently, the first respondent/writ petitioner is not eligible for pension; however, in the event of the first respondent/writ petitioner applying for relaxation of the relevant rule before the Government of Tamil Nadu, the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner can be considered sympathetically and orders may be passed. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge has to be set aside. 4. The first respondent/writ petitioner appeared as a party-in-person and according to him, even a resigned employee is eligible for pension and the said view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court also. Based on these submissions, the party-in-person has sought confirmation of the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have considered the above submissions made on either side. 6. As far as this issue is concerned, identical issue has been decided in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001-WLR-852 The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary, Department of Education, Madras – 9 and the Director of School Education, Chennai vs. S.V Paul Jeyaraj and the relevant portion of the said judgment, viz., paragraph no.7 reads as under: "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 world 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 05.06.1981 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 concessions 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 conform 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." As per the above said Division Bench judgment, even those teachers of private schools who had resigned subsequent to the introduction of Pension Scheme are also eligible for pensionary benefits. 7. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no such a whisper to that effect in the concerned Government Order, viz., G.O. Ms.No.37, Education Department dated 05.01.1983. But, a reading of the following portion of paragraph no.7 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court would make it clear that even those teachers who had resigned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 subsequent to the cut-off date are also eligible for the benefit of pension. "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. . . " 8. But, since it is the specific stand of the appellant that there is no such an indication in G.O. Ms.No.37, Education Department dated 05.01.1983 also, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by directing the appellant to consider the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner in terms of the judgment reported in 2001-WLR-852 and to pass orders on the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision to be taken by the appellant is also directed to be forwarded to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 9. With the above said directions, the writ appeal is disposed of No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Government is not a party to the writ petition. A perusal of the relevant papers also reveals the same. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary, Finance (Pension) Department and also to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu Office,361, Anna Salai,Chennai 600 018 2 The District Educational Officer Cheranmahadevi Office @ S.N. High Road,Tirunelveli 627 006 3. The Secretary to Government, Financce (Pension) Department,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 4. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Government, Education Department,Chennai. +1cc to Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate SR.No.15645 +1cc to Mr.S.Sankaran, Party in Person SR.No.15124 W.A. (MD) No.333 of 2011 26.04.2011 cad PA/29.04.2011/3P/7C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/