COMMISSIONER Vs. S AGNES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:- THE present Respondent No.1 was initially employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in St. Francis Anglo Indian School from 5.8.1959 to 17.7.1978. Subsequently, he joined as a teacher under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the present petitioner, with effect from 27.7.1978 and superannuated on 30.11.2000. Since the claim of the present Respondent No.1 for inclusion of the period of service rendered under the said Anglo Indian School for the purpose of pension was not accepted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.1008 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, claiming for such relief. Present Respondent No.1 relied upon Office Memorandum No.28 dated 7.2.1986 in support of her claim. THE contention of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was to the effect that the persons who were working in Central or State Autonomous bodies were entitled to count past services for the purpose of pension. As per the instructions, a Central Autonomous Body means a Body which is financed wholly or substantially from cess or Central Government. Even though there was no specific definition for State Autonomous body, by applying the very same yardstick, until the State Autonomous body is financed wholly or substantially from the State Government, the service rendered under such Body cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. THE expression "substantially" means that more than 50% of the expenditure of the autonomous body is met by the State or the Central Government. In the present case, St. Francis Anglo Indian Girls High School was a privately managed aided school and the grant received from the Government was less than 50% of the expenditure and, therefore, the service rendered by the applicant (present Respondent No.1) in such privately managed aided school cannot be counted. THE Tribunal repelled the contention raised by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and accepted the claim of the applicant (present Respondent No.1) by concluding that there was no definition as to what can be considered as "State Autonomous body", even though there was a definition regarding "Central Autonomous body". THE Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a proper definition as to the meaning of the "State Autonomous body", it should be construed that so long as the service rendered by the concerned employee in a private aided school is pensionable, such service should be taken into account for the purpose of pension by the respective Government. THE Tribunal also repelled the other contention raised by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan that the applicant (present Respondent No.1) had resigned from her service, by observing that such resignation was only a technical resignation in order to join the service under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and should not stand in the way of the applicant in getting the benefit of pension by taking into account the past service rendered in the private aided school. On the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal quashed the order dated 17.11.1999, whereunder the claim of the applicant had been turned down by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to consider the question of grant of pension in accordance with the Rules as interpreted by the Tribunal. Such order of the Tribunal is being questioned by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE primary document relating to absorption of Central Government servants in Central Autonomous Bodies and vice versa is as contained in Instructions dated 29.8.1984, a copy whereof has been produced before us by the counsel appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Such instructions relating to absorption of Central Government servants in Central Autonomous Bodies and vice versa provides for counting of past services for the purpose of pension. Subsequently, a decision was taken as per Office Memorandum dated 7.2.1986, more or less adopting a similar principle in respect of appointment of employees of the State Governments and State Autonomous Bodies in Central Autonomous Bodies or statutory bodies. Such instructions, of course, was subject to the reciprocal arrangement entered into between the concerned State Government and the Central Government and it was decided that similar benefits can be extended inter alia to the employees of State Autonomous Bodies in any Central Autonomous Body. It is not in dispute that subsequently the same arrangement has been extended to the employees working in the Autonomous Bodies in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the applicant was (present Respondent No.1) working in an Anglo Indian School, which was not receiving aid from the State Government. It is not disputed by him that so far as the Anglo Indian schools for primary level in Tamil Nadu are concerned, such teachers are entitled to receive pension from the amount granted by the State Government. It is of course true that so far as the salary component is concerned, it is paid out from the fees collected from the students. However, it is also not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that in case the fees collected from the students are not sufficient to meet the salary component of the teachers, aid is being granted by the State Government from time to time to pay such deficit salary. From the Code From the Code of Regulations relating to Anglo Indian Schools, it is apparent that the pension is payable by the State Government and also if there is deficit in the salary after fees had been collected from the students, such deficit is paid by the State Government. In view of the above, it can be construed that such school was substantially aided by the State Government. This position also becomes clear from the stand taken by the State Government in the counter filed before the Tribunal. In the absence of any specific definition relating to State Autonomous Body, the interpretation given by the Tribunal with a view to advance cause of substantial justice, appears to be fair and proper and we do not think this is a fit case where by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court should interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, where in a possible view has been taken by the Tribunal.