S MALLIGESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 20.04.2010 and direct respondents 2 and 4 to compute the service of the petitioner from 11.01.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits in the light of the order in W.P.No. 26933 and 26934 of 2007 dated 23.04.2008.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was posted for admission, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents was directed to take notice to verify whether the matter in issue is covered by the earlier orders of this Court.

(3.) . The new pension rule was enacted from 01.04.2003 as per the said Rule person who were appointed on or after 01.04.2003 shall not be eligible for pension or gratuity and they shall be allowed only in Contributory Pension scheme as per the scheme framed under various Government Orders including the impugned Government Order G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department), dated 06.08.2004. As per the impugned Government Order the employers who were appointed on or after 01.4.2003 became the members of the scheme. The said impugned Government Order insist that each employer shall have to pay monthly contribution of 10% of basic pay and DA from his salary to the Contributory Pension Scheme and matching contribution will be made by the State Government for each employee who contributes to the scheme. The writ petitioner challenges the impugned Government Order on the ground that his appointment is before the date of the Government Order and therefore, he cannot be governed under the said Government Order. In any event, the vires of the Government Order is challenged on various grounds. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, when the petitioner has got qualified and he was appointed much before the Government Order came into existence, simply because he was sent for child psychology training in the year 2005 which is due to the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be held responsible since his appointment is before the date till dated by the petitioners, it is open to the respondents to claim the same from the petitioners. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." It is thereby held that even in respect of the persons who have finished the child psychology after the impugned Government Order came into force, then once it is found that such candidates were appointed before the commencement of the Government Order in the sanctioned vacancies, then existing pension rule alone should apply. The learned Judge ultimately decided not to go into the question as to whether the said Government Order is valid or otherwise. Following the said order many orders came to be passed by this Court consistently including the latest order in W.P.No.10447 of 2008 dated 16.07.200. Applying the facts and circumstances of the case to the said dictum laid down by this Court consistently, there is no difficulty to conclude that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that only after the training in child psychology has been completed, the appointment should be deemed to be valid has no force. In fact, the Division Bench in a batch of writ appeals where G.O.Ms.No.559 Education Department, dated 11.07.1995, came to be challenged while upholding the validity of the said Government Order has held that the past service of the petitioners therein shall count for pension which is as follows: