R ARUMUGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in ministerial service in the subordinate judiciary. He joined duty on 13.11.1953 as Lower Division Clerk at Tiruchirapalli District Munsif Court and later transferred to South Arcot District, namely Cuddalore District. He was in continuous service till 10.11.1966. He is stated to have tendered his resignation, which was also accepted by the judicial department. He had put in total service of 12 years 11 months and 27 days. Having resigned from the service by virtue of Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, he was not eligible for payment of pension. In the above stated background, the petitioner left the service of the judiciary department. While so, the State Government came forward with the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1015, Education, dated 5.6.1981, in and by which, the pension benefits was made admissible to such of those employees in the aided schools and colleges, who had resigned their services prior to the introduction of pension scheme to those institutions. Apparently, that inspired the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for the sanction of pension on par with what was granted under G. O. Ms. No. 1015, dated 5.6.1981. His representation, dated 1.11.,1989 to the fourth respondent was considered and the first respondent State Government, by its communication, dated 26.9.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner. THE rejection letter, which was communicated to the third respondent herein, was duly informed to the petitioner by the fourth respondent by its proceedings, dated 22.2.2001. It is in the above stated situation, the petitioner came forward with the present writ petition, seeking for a declaration that Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules itself is ultra - vires and unconstitutional and consequently, for a direction to the respondents to grant pension appropriate to the service rendered by him.

(2.) KANNAN, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his submissions, stated that unlike the case of dismissal of an employee or otherwise from service, a person who resigned from the services of the State, after having put in a minimum qualifying service of 10 years should not be treated differently than an employee, who had gone on voluntary retirement or Superannuation or on retirement. According to the learned Counsel, an employee, who rendered unblemished service to the State, should not be deprived of the valuable benefits, namely pension, merely because he had to resign under the unforeseen circumstances, after having put in minimum qualifying service of 10 years.

(3.) AS against the above submissions, P.S. Raman, Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 pointed out that various grounds of challenge to the vires of Rule 41 is now governed by the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the challenge to Rule 41 as has been made by the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel expressed that resignation, retirement, superannuation and Voluntary retirement have been held to have got different connotations in the service jurisprudence by the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the petitioner's claim made in this writ petition cannot be granted.