Past Services Of Claimant In An Unaided Post Can Be Considered As Pensionable Service- Madras HC
The Madras High Court has held that past services of the petitioner in an unaided post can be considered as pensionable service for the purposes of calculating the qualifying years of service for grant of pension alone.
The Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh referred to the decision of the High Court in S. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai & 3 Others W.P.15007 of 2010 and observed that “Though the petitioner herein had sought for a larger relief for all the service and monetary benefits, his service from the date of appointment in the unsanctioned post could be taken into account for calculating his pensionable service also, in the light of the aforesaid decision.”
Advocate S. Sarath Kumar appeared for the petitioner and AGP T. Chezhiyan appeared for the respondent.
- The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in an unaided post in the respondent school. The respondent school had sought sanction of teaching post in accordance with G.O whereby teaching and non-teaching posts to the respondent school were sanctioned.
- Accordingly, the petitioner's appointment was approved in one of the sanctioned posts and the petitioner was paid the salary as B.T. Assistant from the date of his appointment.
- The Division Bench of the High Court, whereby authorities were directed to consider the request of the Minority Schools for Grant-in-Aid and the Government had extended the staff salary grant for Private Schools through another G.O.
- In the year 1999, the Tamil Nadu recognized Private Schools Regulation Act was amended by insertion of Section 14(1)(a) which granted power to the Government to continue payment of aid to the private schools, which were receiving grant before the Academic Year 1991-92.
- Thereafter, the petitioner had resigned from the services of the respondent school in 1995 and had joined the Government Educational Service in the Government Higher Secondary Schoo.
- The petitioner had retired from the service on November 27, 2006, and now the petitioner has claimed for inclusion of his past service as B.T. Assistant (an unaided post) in the respondent’s school, as pensionable service for the calculation of his monthly pension.
The counsel for the respondent contended that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post therefore, he was not entitled for the benefit of pension and other service benefits for that period.
The High Court said that the contention of the respondent was liable to be rejected as the Government themselves had ratified such an appointment, by approving the petitioner's appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant from the date of his original appointment I.e., from June 3, 1987.
Accordingly, the Writ petition was allowed.
Cause Title- P. Nedumaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.