Allowed

R.Kousalya, v. the Director

Madras HC1 Feb 2013WP/20684/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Psychological distress to the wife of a deceased watchman due to delay in pension. The petitioner was the wife of the deceased. The High Court directed the third respondent to forward the pension proposal to the second respondent within two weeks and imposed costs. The court held that unless the State Government has undertaken to pay pension to all approved employees of the aided college, it is no

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to forward the pension proposal to the second respondent within two weeks and imposed costs of Rs.5,000 on the third respondent.

R.Kousalya, Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.20684 of 2012

¶5

R.Kousalya ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.
1.The Director,
Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of College Education,
Coimbatore Zone,
Coimbatore – 18.
3.The Secretary,
CBM College,
Sakethapuri,
Kovai Pudur,
Coimbatore – 42. ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to forward the pension proposal of the Petitioner's husband Late K.Rangasamy to the second respondent and direct the second respondent to sanction family pension and all other monetary benefits to the petitioner including arrears.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannankumar

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Addl.G.P. For R1 and R2 Mr.P.Muthukrishnan for R3 O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the third respondent College to forward the pension proposal, which arose on account of the death of her husband K.Rangasamy, who was working as Watchman in the third respondent College. It is claimed by the petitioner that unless the pension proposal is forwarded by the third respondent, the official respondents will not be in a position to grant the same.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

When the matter came up on 01.08.2012, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions from the official respondents. In respect of the third respondent, private notice was ordered. Accordingly, M/s.P.Muthukrishnan and G.Arulmurugan appears for the third respondent. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated Nil 2013 has been filed and on behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit dated 31.08.2012 has also been filed.

¶13

It is seen from the records that the petitioner's husband was employed as a Watchman in the third respondent College, which is an aided private college governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner's husband was employed from the year 1975 and he was due to retire from service on 30.11.1999. During the tenure of service, they were residing at No.5/2, Dhottarayan Koil Street, Kovail Pudur, which is claimed by the third respondent Management that it belongs to the third respondent College. However, during April 1999, the third respondent College directed the husband of the petitioner to go before the Medical Board to ascertain the age. This was on the ground that the petitioner's husband K.Rangasamy was only 53 years and not reached the age of superannuation.

¶14

Subsequent to the same, Late Rangasamy filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.18164 of 1999 stating that he is entitled to continue in service. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28.10.2002. Even during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the said Rangasamy, sent a representation dated 03.10.2000 stating that since the decision of the High Court was getting delayed, without prejudice to his claim in the writ petition, he has decided to sign the pension papers and therefore, he requested the Management to get his signature and send the proposal to the second respondent. The said letter was received by the third respondent and an endorsement was made by one V.Srinivasan stating that the letter was received on 03.10.2000. Unfortunately, the said Rangasamy passed away on 29.10.2000, leaving the petitioner, being wife and five children including 4 daughters and one son as legal heirs.

¶15

After the death of the petitioner's husband, the third respondent College informed the petitioner that she should submit the Death Certificate as well as the Legal Heir certificate for claiming pension. The petitioner sent a reply dated 18.05.2001 stating that the Management is not sending the pension proposal inspite of the fact all records have been submitted to the college. Based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the second respondent informed the College on 03.09.2001 that despite the fact that an employee of a private college was relieved as early as 30.11.1999, the Management has not sent pension proposal to help the family and it is regrettable. Therefore, the College was directed to send the proposal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at an early date. The office of the second respondent had sent

¶16

several communications to the third respondent to forward the proposal. It will not be out of place to mention that the second respondent office had sent as many as 14 communications starting from the year 2001 to 2009. Despite the same, the third respondent had not forwarded the pension proposal.

¶17

However, on 01.04.2002 the College informed the District Collector that since the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband was still pending before the High Court, there is a legal problem in forwarding the proposals. In the mean while, the second respondent informed the College that the writ petition itself was dismissed as early as 28.10.2002 and therefore, the only objection raised does not survive. It is at this juncture, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for the relief set out above.

¶18

In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, these facts were admitted and in paragraph 7 to 9, it was averred as follows:-

¶19

"7.It is humbly submitted that the 3^rd respondent college management had entered into agreements on several occasions regarding several pending issues of the college including the inordinate delay in the settling of the terminal benefits of the teaching non-teaching staff in the tripartite talks arranged by various authorities in which the 2^nd respondent RJDCE was also a signatory. The 3^rd respondent College Management did not comply with the provisions of the agreements on most occasions.

¶20

8.It is humbly submitted that the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore has no objection in forwarding the proposals of the terminal benefits of the petitioner's husband Late K.Rangasamy to the office of the Accountant General if the said proposals were received from the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent college.

¶21

9.For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the third respondent college management to forward the proposals of all terminal benefits to the second respondent namely the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit."

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The third respondent, in the counter affidavit stated that

¶23

the petitioner's husband did not vacate the quarters even after attaining the age of superannuation. Even after the death of her husband, the petitioner allegedly squatting on the property belonging the third respondent college, thereby preventing them from providing accommodation to other employees.

¶24

Curiously, in paragraph 4 of the counter, the College took the following stand:-

¶25

"4. ...It was also informed to the petitioner that pension proposal of the petitioner would be processed, if the petitioner vacate the quarters and hand over possession to this respondent. But the petitioner without paying any damages for the last 12 years has been in unauthorised occupation of the quarters belonging this respondent. Therefore, this respondent could not forward the pension proposal."

¶26

It is not clear as to how the Management can refuse to forward the pension proposal, especially, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, an employee of the aided private college is entitled to get pension in terms of Rule 11 (9) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. Rule 11(9) stipulates that every teacher or other person employed in a college, shall, subject to the orders issued by the Government, from time to time, be eligible for pension. By such statutory right, when the State Government has undertaken to pay pension to all the approved employees of the aided college, it is not open to the third respondent to withhold such pension claim to be forwarded to the department. The dispute between the third respondent and the petitioner is purely a civil dispute and that cannot be a ground for the College in refusing to perform their statutory function vested under the Act, wherein by which employees have been granted pension by the State Government. It is also made clear that it is not the third respondent scheme which the petitioner is claiming to enforce and the liability to pay pension is by the State. The third respondent is merely an authority who forwards the application, if it is otherwise in order. They cannot settle their private score in the guise of withholding the pension application form. The conduct of the third respondent cannot be appreciated, this is especially when the office of the second respondent has sent as many as 14 reminders to the third respondent college.

¶27

In fact under Section 14-A of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, if a college indulges in mal-administration, lapses or irregularities, or neglect to discharge any of the functions entrusted to such Management, it empowers the State even to appoint a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Officer to run the College. If the third respondent continues

¶28

to refuse to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner, this Court will be constrained to direct the Government to initiate process under Section 14-A of the Act.

¶29

Under the said circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed, with a direction to the third respondent to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the second respondent. This can be done without prejudice to their taking action in an appropriate civil forum for evicting the petitioner and that action has got no relevance in forwarding the pension proposal of the petitioner. Since the third respondent continuously dodged in sending the pension proposal for the last 12 years by giving lame reasons and also trying to settle their private score, this Court is constrained to impose cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which shall be paid to the petitioner by the third respondent, within a period of four weeks.

¶30

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Director,
Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of College Education,
Coimbatore Zone,
Coimbatore – 18.
3.The Secretary,
CBM College,
Sakethapuri,
Kovai Pudur,
Coimbatore – 42.
+1 CC To Mr.P.Muthukrishnan,Advocate in SR No.6593
+1 CC To Mr.P.Kannankumar,Advocate in Sr.No.6504
+1 CC To Govenment Pleader in Sr. No.6738.
ssi(co)
rd 12.2.13

¶31

W.P.No.20684 of 2012

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Kousalya, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kousalya, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Mukesh Kumar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

C.Rajkumar, Vs the General Manager

M.Velu Vs the Chairman

Dr.C.S.Rex Sargunam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Anamalai Ambedhkar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mr.v.Govinda Rajasekaran Vs the General Manager