The District Educational Officer and Others vs K. Rajamma and Others

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The appellants in the writ appeal were the respondents in W.P.No.14109 of 1988. The respondents herein were the

petitioners in that writ petition. We are referring to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the writ petition.

The petitioners were in service in the transferred territories of Kanyakumari district and they had entered service in the erstwhile Travancore-

Cochin State, long prior to 31.10.1986 and they were in service on that date. Their claim is that they are entitled to the benefits of the Private

Secondary School Scheme which is briefly referred to as P.S.S. Scheme. They came to this Court by way of W.P.No.14109 of 1988 putting

forth the following prayer:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other

writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents to sanction the salary with increment and other benefits to the petitioners

after completion of their respective 58th year, upto their respective 60th year and also upto the 31st May of the respective School year, which the

petitioners are legally entitled, to pass such further or other suitable orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of

this case and render justice.

With reference to the petitioners continuing in service till they completed 60 years of age, there was, and there is no controversy. Equally so on the

aspect that the petitioners are entitled to pension on the basis of service upto the age of 58 years, there is no dispute. The learned single Judge

accorded reliefs to the petitioners as follows:

However, the learned Government Advocate was fair enough to admit that the communication dated 30.5.1988 was passed pursuant to the orders

of this Court. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayer for in this writ petition. Once a direction is given by the

concerned authority that the petitioners shall be continued in service till they completed 60 years of age, they will be automatically entitled to salary

and increments till they retire from service. The question whether the petitioners are entitled to pension on the basis of their service upto the age of

60 years does not arise because the petitioners agree that they are entitled to pension on the basis of their service upto the age of 58 years under

the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act. The reason is that there is no provision for pension and gratuity in P.S.S. Scheme.

Similar position was considered in the case of John Rose and I have already referred to paragraph 12 of G.O. Ms. No. 1069, dated 14.7.1987. It

is therefore clear that for pension purposes, service should be taken upto the age of 58 and the remaining period of service should be treated on

re-employment basis. The petitioners herein are in a similar position and they will be entitled to similar benefits.

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

Mr. A. Fathimanathan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners could not claim

emoluments which would exceed the pay drawn at the time of retirement, though made up of pension admissible and the pay during re-

employment. On this basis the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would say that the petitioners would not be entitled to

increments during the period of their re-employment. The learned Government Advocate places reliance on Rule 9, proviso (a) of the Tamil Nadu

Non-Government Teacher''s Pension Rules, 1958. The learned Government Advocate fairly concedes that this rule was not pressed into service

before the learned single Judge.

There is a ruling already given in the case of teachers similarly placed as the petitioners, in G.O.Ms.No.1069, Education Department, dated

14.7.1987, where it has been clearly opined that teachers like the petitioners who are to continue on re-employment basis would not be entitled to

pension on the basis of their service upto the age of 60years, thereby indicating that the other benefits which they enjoyed under the P.S.S Scheme

shall not be deprived to them. The implication of G.O. Ms. No. 1069, Education Department, dated 14.7.1987 have been taken note of by the

learned single Judge when he granted the prayer of the petitioners without in any way mutating it. We must record that the grievance of the

respondents, as expressed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for them in this writ appeal, is only with reference to the accord of

increment to the petitioners during the period beyond the age of 58 years. In G. O. Ms. No. 1069 dated 14.7.1987 there is also a category

averment that no recovery or adjustment shall be made. We do not think that we should discriminate the petitioners from the case dealt with in

G.O. Ms. No. 1069, dated 14.7.1987. Even the argument that the import of the G.O. must be confined to the case of the teacher John Rose, in

our view, was rightly repelled by the learned single Judge and we agree with his opinion that the instructions contained in the said order would

apply to all the teachers who are similarly placed. In the said circumstances the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.