During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner died. By order made in W.P.M.P.2153 of 2007, dated 16.11.2007, the legal representatives have been brought on record.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 16.6.1953 in Sri J.R.E.T. (Janaki Ramachandran Educational Trust) Primary School Aided School at Chennai and she worked in that school till 18.6.1973. She was constrained to submit her resignation due to family circumstances. Subsequently, her husband deserted the petitioner with her two children on 22.9.1973. Thereafter, she joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in Krishnasamy Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Nungambakkam on 14.7.1973 and worked in that school till 9.6.1977. In the meantime, she acquired B.A. Degree in 1974, B.Ed. in 1975 and also completed Post Graduation. She resigned from that school and thereafter, on 10.6.1977, joined St.Maris Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai as B.T. Assistant and she worked in that school till 30.6.1994 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
3. The petitioner has submitted that she was paid a meagre pension of Rs.1069/- out of the management funds from 1.7.1994. The previous service rendered by the petitioner in Sri J.R.E.T. (Janaki Ramachandran Educational Trust) Primary Aided School at Nungambakkam, Chennai from 16.6.1953 to 18.6.1973 was not taken into consideration and no pensionary benefits were granted for the 20 years of service in the said school.
4. The petitioner has further submitted that in order to sanction pension to teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government educational institutions, the government have passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 5.1.1983, G.O.Ms.No.288, Education (U2) Department, dated 1.3.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1364, dated 14.12.1987, granting pension to the teachers who had retired and resigned. Even in cases of resignation after the crucial dates, the government have granted relaxation of certain conditions and allowed retirement benefits. The government have further ordered that there is no need for any specific orders from the higher authorities or the government, condoning the resignation in each individual case and that the authorities competent to sanction pension themselves can pass appropriate order, if they satisfied the conditions set out in the Government Order.
5. The petitioner has further submitted that several representations were sent to the educational authorities and she submitted a representation dated 9.1.1999, to the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Government of Tamilnadu and in response to the said representation, the Principal Accountant General, Madras in his letter dated 15.11.1999 sent a reply stating that as the petitioner did not join any government educational institution after resignation and that since she had joined only a Matriculation School, the Accountant General (A & E) Chennai, directed the petitioner to approach the government for relaxation of the provisions for sanction of pension. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Legal Aid Services Authority and they sent a representation dated 22.7.2000 through a counsel, seeking payment of pension with effect from 6.6.1981 as per G.O.Ms.No. 37, Education Department, dated 5.1.1983. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu by the impugned order dated 25.8.2001, has rejected the request of the petitioner for sanction of pension on two grounds (i) that since the petitioner had resigned from an aided school on 18.6.1973, i.e. after the date of commencement of the pension rules, dated 1.4.1955 and (2) she had not satisfied the requirements under rule 12 (a) (b) of the Pension Rules, applicable to private school teachers. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
6. Inviting the attention of this Court to the representations dated 22.7.2000 and 9.8.2000 submitted to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department and other authorities, Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the writ petitioner had clearly pointed out that she is entitled to the grant of pension as per the above said government orders, even in case of resignation after the crucial date, the first respondent has failed to advert to the same and mechanically rejected the request of pension and by citing irrelevant reasons.
7. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary, Department of Education, Madras and the Director of School Education, Chennai, Vs. S.V.Paul Jeyaraj, reported in 2001 Writ L.R.852, learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that the petitioner who had resigned the service even after the crucial date is entitled to pension and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction pension with effect from 5.6.1981 as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 5.1.83, till her death. As the legal representatives have already been brought on record, he submitted that though the petitioner had sought for arrears of pension with effect from 5.6.1981 and for a further direction to pay monthly family pension, consequent to the death of the petitioner on 21.10.2003, it is suffice that the arrears of pension may alone be disbursed from 5.6.1981, till the date of death of the petitioner i.e.on 21.10.2003.
8. The Deputy Accountant General (Pension) in the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), Tamilnadu, Chennai-18, representing the fourth respondent has submitted that as per Rule 12(a) of the Pension Rules and orders of the pension scheme for staff of non-government educational institutions to be eligible for payment of pension or gratuity, the following conditions have to be considered:
clarificatory orders regarding eligibility for pension from 5.8.1981 in respect of those who have retired before the crucial dates. It is submitted that , pension scheme was introduced to teaching staff of Aided Schools from 1.4.55 vide G.O.Ms.No. 1109, dated 31.5.58. Those who have retired before the crucial date i.e. 31.5.58, were allowed pension from 1.3.68 (G.O.Ms.No.1505, dated 24.9.68). The teaching staff even if resigned the post before 31.5.58, as against retirement, are entitled to pension from 5.6.81 as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 5.1.83. Thus, to be eligible for pension as per G.O.37, one should have resigned the post before the crucial date i.e.31.5.58. The petitioner resigned the post long after that date i.e. on 18.6.1973 knowing fully well the existence of pension scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under this Government order.
10. Though notice has been served on the respondents 1 to 3, no counter affidavit has been filed, disputing the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner till her death. However, Mr.P.Subramanian, Additional Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the impugned order on the ground that as the petitioner had resigned from service after 1.4.1955, pension cannot be sanctioned. He also submitted that as the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements as per Rule 12(a) of the Pension Rules, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. The fact that the petitioner had served for 20 years in Sri J.R.E.T. (Janakiram Ramachandran Educational Trust) Primary School Aided School at Chennai, has not been disputed by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), the fourth respondent, her representation was considered and accordingly rejected in 1999, with a direction to approach the government, the competent authority for relaxation of the provisions of the Government order G.O.Ms.No. 37, Education department, dated 5.1.83. It is the contention of the Accountant General, Chennai that those who resigned or retired after the crucial date i.e. 31.5.58 are not eligible for grant of pension. Such a contention advanced by the government has already been considered and rejected by this Court in the decision rendered in Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Education, Madras and Director of School Education, Chennai vs. S.V.Paul Jeyaraj reported in 2001 Writ L.R.852 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. At paragraph No.7, the Division Bench after considering G.O.Ms.No.1015, dated 5.6.81, G.O.Ms.No.37, Education, dated 5.1.83 and the other proceedings has held as follows:
" 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 afore- mentioned 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 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 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."
14. Perusal of the representations dated 22.4.2000 and 22.7.2000 of the writ petitioner clearly shows that she had referred to G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department dated 5.1.83, wherein, it has been clearly stated that "even in cases of "resignation" after the crucial dates, the government have in a number of hard cases, where, even if particulars of the individuals were not available, relaxed the stiputations and allowed retirement benefits to "resigned" teachers also." She had also pointed out a specific instance where for another teacher, the government have relaxed the provisions and granted pensionary benefits to Mr.Zdanisla Fernando, Headmaster of DON BOSCO Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai. In the representations, the petitioner had also expressed her grievance that she had approached the education department as well as the Office of the Account General, Chennai on many occassions requesting them for sanction of pension and that she was unable to eke out her livelihood, with the meagre pension granted by the management.
15. Material on record shows that the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1994 and that in her representation, she had also expressed her agony of leading a miserable life without adequate pension. She had served for nearly 20 years in an aided school. In one of the representation dated 22.4.2000 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister through Secretary to the Government, Fort St.George, Chennai, the petitioner had expressed her grievance of treatment meted out by officers of the Accountant General. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Education Department in his letter No.16310/u2/2000-2, dated 9.8.2000 has directed the Director of school Education, Chennai, to submit his remarks. After exchange of correspondence, the Director of School Education, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.67356/I.3/2000, dated 5.9.2000, has submitted a proposal along with the recommendation of the District Educational Officer, South Chennai, in R.C.No.7422/A4/2000, dated 21.12.2000, who had recommended that the services of the petitioner for a period of 18 years 11 months and 15 days can be taken into consideration as qualifying service for sanction of pension.
16. Despite the proposals sent in favour of the writ petitioner, the first respondent has mechanically rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner had resigned her post after the crucial date i.e. 1.4.55, after the introduction of the pension scheme and since the petitioner had not satisfied the criteria prescribed under rule 12(a)(b) of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, pension cannot be granted. It is to be noted that the government is the appellant in the reported decision stated supra. The said decision, has been rendered in 27th July, 2001. Having suffered an order before this Court that a teacher who had resigned even after the crucial date can be sanctioned pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 5.1.83 and having regard to the fact that the educational authorities, have verified the service records of the writ petitioner and recommended for sanction the pension, the government ought not to have rejected the pension to the writ petitioner. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench is applicable to all those persons who are similarly placed. It is a judgment 'in rem'. The Government ought not to have driven the petitioner to Court to redress her grievance, when the government is aware of the decision of this Court. The rejection of the writ petitioner's request, by the government is in arbitrary. The petitioner who had attained the age of superannuation in 1994 had been driven to various offices and ultimately, she had to take recourse through the Legal Services Authority. It is also to be noted that she was deserted by her husband at an early stage with two children. Ultimately, when she was prosecuting this writ petition, she died on 21.10.2003. At least taking notice in this Writ Petition, the respondents could have verified the service particulars and examined the case afresh, in the light of the government orders sated supra. There is absolutely no reference to the government orders, in the impugned order. When the government have specifically directed that even the subordinate officials can sanction pension, there was no need to send a proposal to the government. The petitioner had been driven from pillar to post. Courts have consistently held that pension is not a bounty and that it is granted to a person who had put in the required period of service, and to eke out his livelihood for the rest of the lifetime, after retirement.
17. It is useful to refer a decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.Raghavendra Acharya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 630, wherein the Supreme Court has held that pension is not a bounty. It is treated to be deferred salary and akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of the retirement.
18. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that as denial of pension has been done in an arbitrary manner, the Government should compensate their make by payment of interest.
19. For the above said reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to work out the arrears of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 5.1.1983, G.O.Ms.No.288, Education (U2) Department, dated 1.3.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1364, dated 14.12.1987, till her date of death i.e. 21.10.2003, by taking into consideration the recommendation of the Director of School Education, Chennai and disburse the same to the legal heirs with interest at 8% as per the Government Orders in force, till the date of payment, within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Writ Petition is allowed with directions. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar aes To
1.The Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Education, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I.Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
4.The Office of the Principal Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlements, Tamilnadu, Chennai-600 018.
1 cc to Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, Advocate, Sr.No.69145 1 cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.6946 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.69384 W.P.No.20319 of 2001 VSV {CO) TP/12.1.2010.