Allowed

T.Rajappa, v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP/12629/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking pension for a retired school headmaster. The 4th Respondent objected to the claim based on the date of promotion, but the Court observed the petitioner was eventually promoted and exonerated. The petition was allowed to regularize the pension and direct payment of interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Response directed to second respondent to send pension proposal based on last drawn basic pay of Rs. 11,300/- within four weeks, and fourth respondent to authorize it and pay interest.

T.Rajappa, Vs the Director of Elementary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.12629 of 2007

¶6

(O.A.No.1129 of 2003)

¶7

T.Rajappa ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai -6.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Trichy.
3.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Education Officer,
Marungapuri Union, Kovilpatti,
Tiruchy District.
4.The Principal Accountant General
261, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents
(R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order
dated 07.11.2014)
This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.1129 of
2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying
for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to grant
pension and other consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner
on the basis of his last drawn pay of Rs.11,300/- per month (basic
pay).

¶8

The petitioner filed O.A.No.1129 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.12629 of 2007.

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner joined the service as Headmaster in the Kannukuli Panchayat Union Primary School on 22.07.1952. While so, by an order dated 20.09.1967, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Ultimately, on 27.11.1975, he was exonerated of all the charges and the period of suspension between 20.09.1967 and 25.11.1973 was treated as period on duty. After revocation of suspension, he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster of the Marungapuri Panchayat Union.

¶11

While the petitioner was under suspension, his junior one S.Swaminathan was promoted as Middle School Headmaster and he was given higher scale of pay than the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to step up his pay on par with that of the said Swaminathan. The Director of School Education vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.360391/D9/85 dated 25.10.1985 directed the District Educational Officer, to step up the pay of the petitioner to that of Mr.Swaminathan. Pursuant to the same, the District Elementary Education Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings dated 17.02.1996 ordered stepping up of the pay of the petitioner on par with that of the said Swaminathan.

¶12

The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 29.02.2000. At the time of his retirement, he was receiving Rs.11,300/- as basic pay. When proposals were sent based on the last drawn pay, the 4th respondent Accountant General seems to have raised objection for granting pension on the ground that the petitioner did not hold the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 02.10.1970. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Original Application seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant pension and other consequential benefits based on his last drawn pay of Rs.11,300/- per month (basic pay).

¶13

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit:-

¶14

"6. It is submitted that however the Director of School Education under his proceedings in Na.Ka.360391/D9/85 dated 25.10.1985 directed the District Educational Officer, Karur to step up the pay of the applicant to that of his junior Mr.Swaminathan. Pursuant to the same the District Elementary Education Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings dated 17.02.1996 ordered the stepping up of the pay of the applicant on par with that of the said Swaminathan and pursuant to the same, the Additional Elementary Education Officer, Marungapuri under his proceedings dated 01.04.1996 refixed the pay of the applicant on par with that of the said Swaminathan. Accordingly, the increment to which the applicant was entitled to,

¶15

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

¶16

was granted by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer under his proceedings in Na.Ka.122/A2/99 dated 30.12.1999.

¶17

It is submitted that he attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2000 and his services were extended for a further period of three months to end with the academic year on 31.05.2000. The last drawn pay of the applicant was Rs.11,300/- basic and the total emolument inclusive of DA, HRA, Medical Allowance special allowance etc., as on 28.02.2000 was Rs.15,796/-."

¶18

In view of the categorical stand of respondents 1 to 3 as stated above, I am of the view that the 4th respondent cannot have any objection to authorise pension based on his last drawn pay of Rs.11,300/-. The fourth respondent was also not justified in stating that since the petitioner was not holding the post of Middle School Headmaster as on 02.10.1970, his pay should not have been fixed on par with Swaminathan, particularly, when it is admitted by the department that Swaminathan, who was junior to the petitioner was promoted during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner was also exonerated of all the charges and therefore, he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster subsequently and was granted pay on par with Swaminathan.

¶19

It is stated that the petitioner is now receiving pension at a lesser basic pay, while he was receiving Rs.11,300/- as basic pay at the time of his retirement.

¶20

For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent viz., District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy, is directed to send proposal for sanction of pension and DCRG based on the last drawn basic pay of Rs.11,300/- in terms of their counter affidavit to the 4th respondent, within a period of four weeks. On receipt of such proposal, the 4th respondent is directed to authorise the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. Since the delay in payment of terminal benefits was due to the mistake of the 4th respondent as found by me, I am of the view that the 4th respondent is liable to pay interest thereon as provided under the Rules and also as per the decision of the Division Bench of this

¶21

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

¶22

Court in GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VS. M.DEIVASIGAMANI reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 for the belated payment of terminal benefits. No costs.

¶23

svki
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
Dt:29/12/2014
True Copy
Sub-Assitant Registrar
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai -6.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Trichy.
3.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Education Officer,
Marungapuri Union, Kovilpatti,
Tiruchy District.
4.The Principal Accountant General
261, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 018.
+ 1 cc to M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate SR 58447
+ 1 cc to Mr.V.Vijayshankar,Advocate SR 58579
+ 1 cc to the Govt. Pleader SR 58744
rj(co)
prk31/12
W.P.No.12629 of 2007
(O.A.No.1129 of 2003)

¶24

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

T.Rajappa, v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rajappa, v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

Saroja Rengan Vs the Secretary to Government

M. Selvam Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

G. Sridharan Vs the District Forest Officer

S.Murugesan Vs the Director of Elementary

D.Thangarajan,S/O.Dharmaraj Vs the Deputy Inspector General