STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. V.GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Government has filed this intra court appeal challenging the order dtd. 15/7/2016 made in WP(MD)No.8941 of 2016.

(2.) The petitioner/R1 herein joined Tamil Nadu Maritime Board as Junior Assistant cum Typist on 18/12/1997. He worked in that capacity till 8/4/2008 at Fort Office, Rameswaram. He thereafter joined as Village Administrative Officer on 9/4/2008 at Aranaiyur Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. He was working as VAO till 12/10/2008. Thereafter, he joined as Assistant Professor on 13/10/2008 upon being selected by Teachers Recruitment Board in Raja Doraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai and he is continuing to serve in the said college till date. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner joined as VAO and then Assistant Professor only after getting prior permission and through proper channel. When the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant cum Typist in Tamil Nadu Maritime Board, he was allotted with Provident Fund account bearing No.348. Contributions were deducted from his salary and he was under GPF scheme. After the petitioner joined the revenue department and then the Education Department, deductions were not made from his salary towards GPF contribution. Even though the petitioner made representations, there was no response from the department. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.2151 of 2014 for directing the government to issue appropriate direction to the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Chennai, in this regard so that the petitioner can continue to come under the Old Pension Scheme. This Court vide order dtd. 10/2/2014 directed the Principal Accountant General to dispose of the petitioner's representation dtd. 20/6/2011 on merits and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu vide communication dtd. 9/6/2014 informed the petitioner that his request to be brought under Old Pension Scheme cannot be acceded to. Challenging the said communication, the petitioner herein filed WP(MD)No.8941 of 2015. The learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 15/7/2016 disposed of the writ petition in the following terms :

(3.) While the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned standing counsel for the second respondent would contend that the order impugned in this writ appeal did not call for interference, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would strongly contend that the approach of the learned Single Judge was justified and that the said approach of the learned Single Judge deserves to be sustained.