D PADMINI Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petition is preferred against the order/official memorandum, dated 23. 08. 2002, in ROC No. 5595/2002/estt. II, issued by the Sub Assistant Registrar (ESTT.) in-charge, in and by which, the petitioner has been informed that she is not eligible for pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules) and that, if she desires, she may submit her application to the Government for relaxation of Rules and sanction of pension.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner joined the Madras High Court Service on 24. 07. 1964 as Copyist and on 23. 08. 1966, she was appointed as Typist and thereafter, as Selection Grade Typist on 01. 10. 1978. She was promoted as Assistant on 06. 04. 1981. According to the petitioner, she got married and subsequent thereto, she had to go on short leave at different times due to her ill-health, family affairs and as her husband was working at Hyderabad. She opted for long leave on loss of pay and the Registry declined to sanction the leave and directed her to join duty forthwith. As she could not join duty because of family circumstances, she was informed that on failure to join duty, she may be removed from service without further notice. On receipt of petitioner's explanation by way of letter dated 05. 12. 1987, the Registry, vide Memorandum dated 14. 01. 1988, directed her to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for gross disobedience of the orders to joint duty, whereupon, she sent a letter dated 06. 02. 1988, requesting to go on voluntary retirement. The Registry informed that she was not eligible for voluntary retirement as she had not put in the required minimum service and that she may seek for resignation; hence, she submitted her resignation with a request to accept it and to pay arrears of salary, Provident Fund, Gratuity and other benefits. Since the Registry, by letter dated 16. 05. 1988, instructed her to tender a separate letter of resignation without any condition, she had to submit an unconditional resignation letter on 19. 07. 1988, which was accepted by the High Court vide letter dated 02. 08. 1988. Subsequent thereto, when the petitioner asked for retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. , the respondent issued the impugned letter/official memorandum dated 23. 08. 2002, denying such benefits on the ground that she is not eligible for pension as per Pension Rules and advised her to approach the State Government for relaxation of Rules and sanction of pension.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent, the petitioner is not eligible for pension as per Pension Rules, particularly in view of Rule-23, which prescribes forfeiture of past service on resignation. Further, the petitioner, having not completed 20 years of qualifying service, is not entitled for voluntary retirement, which can be permitted only to those persons who had completed 20 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age.