Originally, the petitioner joined as Fieldman in the Agricultural Department on 06.08.1959 and thereafter he joined in the Cooperative Deparment on 22.04.1961 as lower Division Clerk and then promoted as Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. While working so, after completing 21 of years of service, he resigned his job on 30.04.1980 wanting to contest the State Assembly Election in the year 1980.
2. Due to paucity of time, he could not pursue the voluntary retirement scheme and instead opted to resign from his job. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities concerned for grant pension stating that he had put in more than 21 years of service. The Petitioner made several representations in this regard. One such representation is rejected by a non-speaking order which is impugned in this writ petition. Challenging the said order of rejection denying the granting of pension, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner, though initially challenged the rejection order of the first respondent dated 26.03.1999, later on, amended the prayer challenging Section 23 (1) of the Tamil Nadu pension Rules 1978 as well together with the order. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Sasikala Subramaniam fairly stated that the petitioner is not inclined to pursue the remedy for the larger relief sought for in the writ petition challenging the pension Rules 1978. However, it is stated that the petitioner restrict his prayer to direct the respondents to consider his case for grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules 1978.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the G.O.Ms.No.391, Education Department dated 07.04.1989 whereby a teacher who served more than 11 years and resigned due to ill-health, has been granted pension on humanitarian grounds by the Government and submitted that the petitioner also may be given the pensionary benefits on the same lines.
4. In the present case, the petitioner has put in more than 21 years of service. If he had opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he would have benefited by way of pension. The petitioner in this case resigned due to personal reasons as above. That cannot, however, stand in the w ay of the petitioner in his claim for pensionary benefits. The petitioner would lose financially. Therefore, his prayer for a suitable direction to the respondents is justified to some extent.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Mrs.Vishnu Priya, stated that the petitioner may be directed to give a fresh represenation setting out all the facts and the same would be considered dispassionately.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has served for more than 21 years, but for his resignation, he is entitled to pensionary benefits as per Rules. It is for the Government, which is the competent authority to decide as to whether pensionary benefits can be extended to the petitioner by relaxing the relevant rules or not.
7. In view of the above, a direction is issued to the Government- the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner to be submitted along with a copy of this order and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the relief granted to similarly placed persons. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before the end of January,2010.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
PAL To
1. The Secretary to Government, CO-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.9
2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, No.170, EVR Periyar Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10