Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2304 (MAD)

M. Vincent Devasirvatham v. State of Tamil Nadu

2021-09-07

A.A.NAKKIRAN, S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 38517 of 2016. 1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred, challenging the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 38517 of 2016, on the ground of laches. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant mainly contended that, the learned Single Judge has not rejected the case in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, but, rejected the same on the ground of laches that, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court after two decades. Learned counsel further contended that, the observation made by the learned Single Judge that, there is delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner in approaching the Court, may run counter to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , as the said decision may be applicable to the case on hand, provided the Appellant is eligible for pensionary benefits. For the delay in approaching the Court, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner can only be deprived of arrears of pensionary benefits. But, that is not the case here. Learned counsel referred to various judgments rendered by this Court, so as to ensure that, the Appellant gets pensionary benefits. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 4. In the present case on hand, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner initially served at various Schools. Thereafter, he was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant at TELC Middle School, Villupuram with effect from 26.04.1984. However, due to his health condition, he resigned the job on 09.06.1988. Admittedly, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has rendered more than ten years of service. It is no doubt true that, there is delay on the part of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner in approaching the Court. 5. The Government has issued a Circular vide G.O.Ms. No. 1015 Education, dated 05.06.1981, which states that, pension will not be sanctioned under the -Pension Scheme for Staff of Non-Government Educational Institutions- to any staff of those Institutions, who have resigned on or after the crucial date. 5. The Government has issued a Circular vide G.O.Ms. No. 1015 Education, dated 05.06.1981, which states that, pension will not be sanctioned under the -Pension Scheme for Staff of Non-Government Educational Institutions- to any staff of those Institutions, who have resigned on or after the crucial date. The said Pension Scheme was introduced in order to avoid grant of pensionary benefits to any staff of Non-Government Educational Institutions, who have resigned the job on or after the crucial date. The reason being that, the Pension Rules came into effect in 1978. 6. The Apex Court decision quoted by the learned counsel for the Appellant in Tarsem Singh case (supra) may not be applicable to the facts of this case, as most of the staff joined prior to the introduction of the said Pension Scheme and also resigned from service before the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, came into force. After the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 came into force, the existing employees will be governed only by the said pensionary Rules. In that situation, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 stares at the Appellant to deprive pensionary benefits, as he had resigned the service in 1988, despite rendering more than ten years of service. For better appreciation, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is extracted hereunder: “Forfeiture of service on resignation: (1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service. Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. (2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1) due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer; shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government Servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government Servant.” 7. In the light of the judgment of this Court dated 27.03.2019 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1793 of 2018 and in the light of Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is almost similar to Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which has been referred to in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115 , this Court is of the view, that the relief sought for by the Appellant cannot be granted, as the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has resigned from service. However, this order will not preclude the Appellant/Writ Petitioner from approaching the Government in accordance with law, to seek any benefit that may be available to him. 8. In fine, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.