K V VANAJA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.4.2011 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant herein was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 4.8.1964. According to the appellant, she resigned the said post on 15.11.1977 due to medical grounds. It is the further case of the appellant that as per the Government Order passed in G.O. Ms. No. 37, Department of Education, Science and Technology, dated 5.1.1983, the appellant is entitled to pension even in a case of resignation. Accordingly, the appellant gave several representations. However, the third respondent rejected the case of the appellant quoting Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Challenging the same, the writ petition filed, which in turn was dismissed. Hence the present writ appeal.

(2.) It is seen that the third respondent is only an authority to implement the order of Respondents 1 and 2. In other words, the question as to whether the appellant is entitled for pension either under the Scheme or as per the Government Order has to be decided by respondents 1 and 2 and not by the third respondent. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made submissions on the entitlement to get pension, which has been passed by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to direct the appellant to approach respondents 1 and 2 being the competent authorities to consider the grant of pension. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any stand on the entitlement of the appellant by way of passing appropriate orders. Further more, the order impugned has been passed only by the third respondent and that too, on the ground that Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 prohibits the consideration of the case of the appellant. Therefore, the question as to whether the resignation of the appellant would amount to voluntary retirement and the further question as to whether the said resignation is due to ill-health being question of fact, will have to be considered only by respondents 1 and 2. In such view of the matter, this writ appeal is disposed of, permitting the appellant to make a representation to Respondents 1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order seeking grant of pension. As and when such representation is received, the first respondent, being the competent authority, will have to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. We also make it clear that the said representation will have to be considered without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge.