Dismissed

N.Leela v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Mar 2017WP(MD)/1394/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a teacher challenged the rejection of her pension claim on the ground that she resigned for family reasons rather than ill-health. The court distinguished a precedent allowing pension for ill-health resignations and relied on a later ruling to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pension claim rejected; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

N.Leela Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.03.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.1394 of 2015 and W.M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶3

N.Leela ... Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department (Pension), Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Director, Directorate of Teachers Education and Training, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 4.The Director of Pension, 259,Anna Salai, Block 3, II Floor, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order made in L.R.No.Rc.62524, 62074 & 61617/2014/D2 dated 05.12.2014 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension from 08.03.2007 to till date with interest and subsequent monthly pension, besides, other pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin kumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocate ***

¶8

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the fourth respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to pay arrears of pension from 08.03.2007 to till date with interest and subsequent monthly pension, besides, other pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶11

2.It is the case of the petitioner that she was working as P.G. Assistant (Mathematics) in St. Michael Teacher Training Institute, Palani, a Government aided institution. She was rendering service from 23.12.1994 to 08.03.2007. It was her further case that after dedicated service of 12 years, two months and 13 days, she submitted resignation on account of her illness.

¶12

3.The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation in the year 2014 enclosing a copy of her resignation letter and news item published in Dinamalar Daily dated 26.10.2014, since the petitioner came to know that this Court has granted pension to a teacher who resigned his job, as in the case of the petitioner. However, the fourth respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2014 rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, resignation from a service or post, entails forfeiture of past service and that therefore, the petitioner's claim for pension cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶13

4.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner resigned from service due to ill-health and that therefore, there cannot be forfeiture of past service, as it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Vijayarangan v. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench) Madurai reported in 2008 (6) CTC 700. In the said judgment paragraphs 6 and 7 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are extracted as follows:

¶14

“6. In the present case, we find that the petitioner proceeded on leave because of mental illness and submitted resignation letter on 2nd Aug., 1988. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent, by letters dated 9th Dec., 1988 and 4th May, 1989, instructed the petitioner to settle all the dues payable to the Government, and on payment of such dues, it was informed that the resignation of the petitioner was to be accepted, which was actually accepted after receipt of such dues by the State Government. Thus, it will be evident that the petitioner was allowed to resign for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which permission was accorded by the State on condition of payment of its dues. It is not the case of the

¶15

¶16

respondent that the petitioner wanted to resign to join service in some other organisation and there was any proceeding for misconduct initiated against him. In fact, there was no allegation made by any of the respondents against the petitioner.

¶17

In such a situation, a question arise whether the service of an employee can be forfeited if person asks for resignation on the ground of ill-health, which is allowed by the State. Under Rule 23, a person is entitled for all benefits if he is allowed to resign for appointment in some other post under the Government. The rule is silent with regard to resignation, if given on the grounds of illness or ill-health for which permission is granted by the competent authority. In case, if it is held that the person, who has resigned because of illness or ill-health, as at par with the class of employees, who resign for misconduct or any adverse record, and the class of employees, who resign to join other government organisation are kept in a separate class for grant of pensionary benefits, in such case one may doubt Rule 23 violative of Article 14 vis-a-vis those who resign for illness or ill-health and is accepted by the competent authority. Therefore, we hold that those who resign because of illness or ill-health and not because of any misconduct or adverse record and are allowed to do so by the State are entitled for the same benefit which is allowed to those who resign to join another service under the State. Comparing the employees who are allowed to resign because of illness or ill-health at par with those employees who resign because of misconduct or adverse record will be otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

¶18

5.Going by the above judgment, it is clear that those who resigned because of illness or ill-health and not because of any mis-conduct or adverse record, are entitled to for the same benefit which is allowed to those who are allowed to resign to join another service under the State.

¶19

6.As against the contentions of the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the above judgement, as she submitted resignation not on illness but on other grounds. In the present case, the petitioner submitted the resignation letter on 08.12.2006. The contents of the letter are relevant and hence, they are extracted as under:

¶20

“ Mdhy ;. vdf ;F cly ;epiy rhpapy ;yhj fhuzj ;jhYk ;. kd ciHr ;ry ; vw ;gl ;ljhYk ;. ghh ;it (3)y ; fhZk ; tz ;zk ; 28/11/2006 Kjy ; gjpdhd ;F https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ehl ;fSf ;F kUj ;Jtr ; rhd ;wpd ; nghpy ; <l ;lh tpLg ;g [f ; nfhhp tpz ;zg ;gpj ;jpUe ;njd ;/

¶21

¶22

jw ;nghJ cly ; epiy ey ;y Kiwapy ; njwp tUtJld ;. kdJf ;Fk ; mikjp fpilf ;fpwJ/ Mfnt. Mikjpahd NHypy ; thH ;f ;ifia elj ;j tpUk ;g [tjhy ;. ,dp vd ;dhy ; j' ;fSila epWtdj ;jpy ; bjhlh ;e ;J gzp bra ;a ,ayhj epiyapy ; cs ;nsd ;/ vdnt. kd mikjpia gpujhdkhff ; fUjp. ahUila J}z ;LjYkpd ;wp. ehnd kdKte ;J vdJ fzpj Mrphpah ; gjtpia 08/12/2006 Kw ;gfy ; Kjy ; ,uh$pdhkh bra ;fpnwd ;/ ”

¶23

7.From the reading of the resignation letter, though the petitioner availed medical leave on health grounds earlier, the reason for resignation is not due to ill-health. The petitioner wanted to live a peaceful life and hence, she wanted herself away from work. The contents of the letter is, therefore, clear that the resignation of the petitioner in the year 2007, is not on account of ill-health but on other reasons.

¶24

8.Even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows:

¶25

“3.I submit that due to my family problem, I submitted a resignation letter dated 08.12.2007 and 08.03.2007 before the Correspondent, St. Michael Teacher Training Institute, Palani, after rendering sincere and dedicated service of 12 years, 2 months and 13 days. After receipt of the resignation letter, the Correspondent by her order dated 08.12.2006 and 08.03.2007 approved it.

¶26

4.I submit that after resignation, I am looking after my family with due care and without giving any room for problem. Though I was relieved from my service on account of resignation, I was not able to come out from day to day family problem. Hence, I was not able to submit a representation seeking for pension and gratuity earlier.”

¶27

9.From her own affidavit, it can be seen that her resignation was due to family problem and that she could look after her family with due care after resignation. It was only on account of the information she got that in similar cases, the Hon'ble High Court has granted pension to a teacher who resigned his job, the petitioner was prompted to make a representation in the year 2014. It was also brought to the notice of this Court the judgement of this Court in the case of A.I.Agnel Ilangovan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2016 (3) CTC 87 wherein the judgment of earlier Division Bench in D.Vijayarangan's case (cited supra) was considered in paragraph 6 which reads as follows:

¶28

“6.Vide proceedings dated 03.04.2013, resignation of the appellant has been accepted. D.Vijayarangan's case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arose out of resignation, on the ground of ill-health. Whereas, the case of the appellant is not so.

¶29

¶30

Resignation of the appellant is due to family circumstances. Therefore, reliance placed on D.Vijayarangan's case is inapposite to the case on hand.”

¶31

10.Since the later Division Bench has categorically held that resignation of a delinquent due to family circumstances cannot be treated on par with resignation to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, under the Government where service qualifies, as contemplated under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of A.I.Agnel Ilangovan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2016 (3) CTC 87, I find no merit in the Writ Petition, as the petitioner, who submitted her resignation due to family circumstances, is not entitled to pension on a true interpretation of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar (AD-II) /True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶37

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶38

School Education Department,

¶39

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶40

Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department (Pension), Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Director, Directorate of Teachers Education and Training, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 4.The Director of Pension, 259,Anna Salai, Block 3, II Floor, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. +1 CC to M/s.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No. 13439 +1 CC to MR.T.LENIN KUMAR, Advocate, SR No. 13276 SRM PSM/JC/SAR3/10.04.2017/5P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

W.P(MD)No.1394 of 2015

¶42

08.03.2017

N.Leela v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Leela v. the Secretary to Government

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

K.Kannan, Non Iti Helper, Vs the General Manager

V.M.Krishnan Vs the Health Secretary

M. Thangaarumugam Vs the Director

T.Ganesan, S/O Thangaraj, Vs the Executive Engineer

R. Chithra, Vs the Tamil Nadu Public

S.Rajendran Vs the Secretary