A.L.Vasudevan v. The State of Tamil Nadu (WP 2146/2021)

Court: High Court of Madras
Decided: 16 October 2023
Bench: R.N.Manjulaauthor
Case no.: WP 2146/2021

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.10.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.2146 of 2021

1.A.L.Vasudevan

2.V.Ponnambalam

3.V.Sivakumar

4.G.Koteeswaran

5.K.Jagadesan

6.N.Thirunavukkarasu

7.V.Kandasamy

8.J.Vatchala

9.Gracia Roberts

10.P.Glory Pushpa Bai

11.C.Arockia Raj

12.S.Sagunthala Valli

13.R.Veronica Rathinamani

14.R.Hema

15.R.Rajeswari

16.N.Ravichandran

17.J.Nagarajan

18.K.Rajalakshmi

19.T.Srinivasan

20.M.Gunasekaran

21.R.Vijayalakshmi

22.S.Akbarali

23.S.Ayyappan ... Petitioners versus

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Chennai - 600 002.

5.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District.

6.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

7.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

8.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

9.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

10.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), No.361, Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents W.P.No.2150 of 2021

1.K.M.Gowri

2.S.Nirmala

3.E.Chandramohan

4.M.Kumarasamy

5.P.Gunasekaran

6.P.Ramasamy

7.G.V.Sethurani

8.K.Paramasivam

9.M.Kandasamy

10.A.Loganathan

11.K.Nageswari ... Petitioners versus

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational), O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Erode District, Erode.

5.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Salem District, Salem.

6.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

7.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), No.361, Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ... Respondents COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to calculate the 50% of service rendered by the petitioners as part-time Vocational Instructor drawing consolidated pay along with regular service for arriving net qualifying service for calculation of pension and to grant all monetary and other attendant benefits and arrears within a stipulated time may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Saravanakumar [in both W.Ps]

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi [in both W.Ps] Government Advocate C O M M O N O R D E R Since the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same and therefore, these Writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

¶2The petitioners are appointed as Vocational Instructors and their services had been regularised and their plea is to count 50% of their past service that they have been rendered as temporary/part time Vocational Instructors from their date of initial appointment till the date of regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

¶3This Court had passed various orders by directing the respondents to count such service of part time/temporary service for calculating the pension of persons whose service has been regularized prior to 01.04.2003. However, a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeals had fixed a cut off date viz. 06.04.2018 to be a date, after which no such request should be entertained. Based upon the aforesaid order, the Government had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Standing)No.194, School Education (SE7-1) Department, dated 12.09.2018, wherein the Government had issued the following orders:- "5. In the above circumstances, in compliance of the judgments of Hon'ble Madras High Court/Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in order to implement the judgment of Madras High Court dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.Nos.882, 808/2017, 1224, 1395, 1471, 1283 and 1323/2016 and in C.M.P.Nos.12269, 11319/17, 15744, 15745, 17938, 17939, 18318, 18319, 17906, 17919 and 17159/2016, the Government has carefully considered the suggestions of the Director of School Education. It has decided to accept the same. Accordingly, Government is passing orders that out of the Part-time Vocational Instructors of Government and Government-Aided Higher Secondary Schools who were brought under regularized salary scale before 01.04.2003, only those who have filed petitions before Madras High Court and Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and got judgements and those similarly placed Vocational Instructors who have filed petition before 06.04.2018 and whose petitions are still pending are alone given permission to get their pension computed on basis of 50% of the services rendered during Part-time service.?"

¶4It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench of this Court while dealing in a batch of Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.(MD).Nos.14365 of 2014 & etc., batch, before the Madurai Bench of this Court by order dated 09.07.2018, after considering the various aspects and the judgment of the Patna High Court, has held that no specific date could be drawn and directed the Government to consider the cases of the similarly placed persons even an application is received after 06.04.2018. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- "19. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that, in service matters, if the similarly placed persons, who are entitled to get the benefit under law, having been denied the benefit, even though in this regard already a decision has been rendered by the Court of law and the same is implemented, the very same relief shall also be extended to all similarly placed persons irrespective of the fact, whether they approached the Court or not, if the law declared by the Court is a judgement in rem.

¶21Moreover, the cause of action arose in these kind of cases are continuous cause of action as each of the petitioners, who are the erstwhile employees of the respective employer/State would be entitled to get the pensionary benefits till their life time. Thereafter, the legal heirs would be entitled to get the family pension benefits.

¶41If the said principle is applied to the facts of the present case, except the decision dated 06.04.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court, no other Division Bench either prior to or after to that, has taken any different view, as the one taken in the said judgment and in all other Division Bench judgments, a uniform and consistent stand taken by this Court was that, the benefit of taking into account 50% of the services rendered by the employees before they brought into regular service shall be the basis for calculating for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Even in the said judgment dated

06.04.2018 in W.A.No.882/2017, that view was accepted and endorsed by the said Division Bench also, but the only embargo the Division Bench has put in that, the said benefit cannot be extended to those who come to the Court hereafter. In order to meet out the said embargo, the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to above, with regard to the continuous cause of action and the benefit, which has been declared by the Court through a judgment in rem has to be extended to similarly placed persons, had been quoted.

¶44In view of the aforesaid judgments, wherein the issue as has been put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, having been dealt with and decided more than once by the Writ Court and the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court more than once and in cases, where SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein also the view taken by this Court has been confirmed, all these petitioners are entitled to, for calculating 50% of the past services, rendered by each of the petitioners in the respective employment before they got absorbed by bringing them under the time scale of pay irrespective of the years of service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Hence, these petitioners also shall be entitled to get the same benefits and accordingly, all these writ petitions are fit to succeed.

¶45In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the respective respondents in each of the writ petitions are hereby directed to take into account the 50% of the past services rendered by each of the petitioners either as Vocational Instructors or any other employment either as a Part Time / Full time / adhoc / temporary / daily wages employees before they brought in under the regular time scale of pay on permanent basis or absorption and by calculating the said 50% of their past service, pension eligibility and pension enhancement or difference of pay and pension shall be calculated and disbursed in favour of the respective petitioners. After fixing the revised pension by taking into account the past 50% services, the revised pension arrears shall be calculated and to be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall continue to receive the revised pension."

¶5Further, recently a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.2133 of 2019, dated 03.03.2023 had approved the view and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "?8. No doubt, the writ petitioners have approached the Court with few months delay and it is not in dispute, that, but for the fixation of cut-off date, they would have been entitled to the benefits of service rendered by them as vocational teachers. The learned Single Judge in the common order in W.P.No.14365 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018 had also referred the common judgment dated 06.04.2018 made in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., and having noted the fact that persons similarly placed have been granted the benefits by referring to various judgments of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India had held that the petitioners in those writ petitions are also entitled to such benefits. Therefore, the principle as enunciated in the above said order is that, the respondents/officials cannot deny the lawful right of the appellants/petitioners herein, which have already accrued to them and has been continuously accruing. Therefore, restricting the benefits only to those petitioners who approached this Court prior to 06.04.2018 and denying the same to the appellants/petitioners who are similarly placed is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶9Further more, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners would submit that the writ petitions filed by the appellants/petitioners were disposed, following the G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 12.09.2018. However, a Writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.22785 of 2019 etc. batch dated 05.11.2019 was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 12.09.2018 issued by the first respondent and quash the same with regard to the cut-off date i.e., 06.04.2018 and directing the respondents to take the 50% of the part time service rendered by the petitioner in that writ petition.

¶10The observation made in the W.P.(MD).No.22785 of 2019 etc., batch is extracted as hereunder:-

"Placing reliance on the observation made in W.P.(MD).No.14365 of 2014 etc., batch, this Court has passed the following order :

¶6The learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that, the issue raised in this batch of cases is covered by number of orders passed by this Court. They also submitted that, the decisions rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, where also, the said view taken by the Writ Court had been confirmed and in some of the cases the matters were taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where also, the view taken by this Court directing the official respondents to calculate the 50% of the services temporarily rendered by the similarly placed persons for the purpose of their pensionary benefits, had been affirmed and upheld and the orders have also been complied with by issuing Government Orders in this regard. All those, who have already filed writ petitions and got orders for recalculating the pension, are fully eligible for pension by taking into account their 50% of the past services rendered by them before their absorption.?

¶11Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the lawful right of the appellants/petitioners herein by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 12.09.2018 for the reason that the cut~off date in the said G.O has been quashed in the above mentioned writ petitions. Therefore, the objections raised by the respondent/officials are liable to be rejected, accordingly they are rejected. The appellants/petitioners are entitled to, for calculating 50% of the past services, rendered by each of the petitioner in the respective employment before they got absorbed by bringing them under the time scale of pay irrespective of the years of service, for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Accordingly, this point is answered. 12 .In the result, these writ appeals are allowed subject to the above observations, setting aside the orders in all the writ petitions mentioned above. Consequently, connected writ petitions are allowed. The respective respondents in each of the writ appeals/writ petitions are hereby directed, after fixing the revised pension by taking into account the past 50% services, the revised pension arrears shall be calculated and to be disbursed to the appellants/petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

¶6The Government after taking into consideration of various subsequent judgments had issued G.O.Ms.No.127, School Education (gf(7)1)Department, dated 12.07.2023, wherein the Government had directed to take into account the 50% of service that has been rendered as part time Vocational Instructors from their date of initial appointment till the date of regularization in respect of 563 persons, who had approached the Court after 06.04.2018. The relevant portion of the Government Order is extracted hereunder:- W.P.Nos.2146o&o2150oofo2021 "6.nkw;fz;l NH;epiyapy; khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; kw;Wk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; bgwg;gl;l jPh;g;ghizfSf;fpz';ft[k;. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;Ffis jtph;f;f ntz;oa[k;. tHf;F Mnyhrid kw;Wk; nkw;ghh;itf; FGtpd; fUj;jpd;gog;gilapYk;. gs;spf; fy;tp Mizahpd; fUj;JUtpid muR ftdKld; ghprPypj;J mjid Vw;fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J. mt;thnw 06.04.2018f;Fg; gpd;dh; tHf;F bjhLj;J jPhg;ghiz bgw;w muR kw;Wk; muR cjtpbgWk; nky;epiyg; gs;spfspy; gzpg[hpe;J Xa;t[ bgw;w 20 bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fsJ 50% gFjpneu gzpf;fhyj;jpid Xa;t{jpaj;jpw;F fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf; bfhs;s mDkjpj;J Miz btspaplg;gl;ljw;F gpd;ndw;g[ mDkjp mspj;Jk;. 01.04.2003f;F Kd;dh; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;l muR. muR cjtpbgWk;. efuhl;rp kw;Wk; khefuhl;rp gs;spfspy; gzpg[hpa[k; kw;Wk; Xa;t[ bgw;w bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpau;fspy;. murhiz (epiy) vz;/194 gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw ehs; 12.09.2018-,y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s ehshd 06.04.2018f;Fg; gpd;dh; tHf;F bjhLj;J jPh;g;ghiz bgw;Ws;s 460 bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; (454+6) kw;Wk; tHf;Ffs; epYitapy; cs;s 103 bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fs; Mf bkhj;jk; 563 bjhHpw;fy;tp Mrphpau;fSf;F ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;s nky;KiwaPL kw;Wk; rPuha;t[ kDf;fspy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; ,Wjp jPh;g;g[f;Fl;gl;L mth;fspd; gFjpneu gzpf;fhyj;jpy; 50 tpGf;fhl;il Xa;t{jpaj;jpw;F fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf; bfhs;s gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FeUf;F mDkjp mspj;Jk; muR MizapLfpwJ."

¶7The petitioners have also been appointed as part time Vocational Instructors and thereafter, their services have been regularized prior to 01.04.2003. Therefore, they are also entitled for counting 50% of their past service rendered as part time Vocational Instructors for calculating their pension.

¶8Hence, these Writ Petitions are disposed and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners for counting 50% of the services rendered by them as part time Vocational Instructors by taking into account of the various orders passed in the Writ Petitions and the judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2017, made in W.A.(MD)No.392 of 2017 etc., batch. No costs.

16.10.2023 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes sri To