Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking for directing the Education Department, Director of School Education, Teachers Recruitment Board, and the Accountant General (respondents) to treat the petitioner as an employee covered under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (‘TNPR’) before its amendment dated 01-04-2003 and to fix the date of service of the petitioner for the old pension scheme effective from 26-03-2003, Battu Devanand, J. has opined that the date of commencement of the selection process for the appointment has to be taken into consideration to extend the benefit of the old pension scheme but not the date of issuing the appointment order or the date of joining by the employee. Further, the Court directed the respondents to include the petitioner under the old pension scheme and to transfer any contributions already deducted from his old Pension Scheme within eight weeks.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Maths Teacher through direct recruitment by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board for Block Resource Centre Teachers with orders on 26-03-2003 to report within seven days. Upon attempting to report on 28-03-2003, he was informed that there was no vacancy and subsequently received a modified appointment order on 31-03-2003 to report to a different location, where he joined duty on 01-04-2003. This delay, which was caused by administrative issues resulted in his ineligibility for the old pension scheme, which was replaced by the new contributory pension scheme on 01-04-2003.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner should receive the old pension scheme benefits since the selection process began before 01-04-2003, despite the petitioner joining after that date?
Decision and Analysis
The Court noted that the old pension rules do not apply to those appointed on or after 01-04-2003.
The Court after referring to various judgments noted that the benefits must be extended by taking into consideration the period during which the selection process took place and not when the same was concluded and an appointment order was given.
The Court took note of S. Sudhakar v Government of Tamil Nadu1, wherein it was said that appointment is a continuous process starting from the date of issuance of the notification and ending with issuing the appointment orders and it should adopt a wider interpretation rather than a strict interpretation that deprives an employee of a beneficial pension scheme.
The Court noted that the selection process was commenced long back, and the appointment order was issued to the petitioner much earlier i.e., on 01-04-2003, and due to the reasons stated by the petitioner that some mistake crept in the appointment order, as such he joined duty on 31-03-2003.
The Court opined that the date of commencement of the selection process for the appointment has to be taken into consideration to extend the benefit of the old pension scheme but not the date of issuing the appointment order or the date of joining by the employee.
Thus, the Court directed the respondents to review the representations made by the petitioner and enroll him under the old pension scheme. Further, whatever contribution has already been recovered from the petitioner, was directed to be transferred to the old Pension Scheme.
[S. Achuthan v. The Secretary to Government, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1211, order dated 26-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Advocate H. Thayumanaswamy
Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Government Pleader L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, General Assistance M. Alagu Gowtham, Advocate Hema Muralikrishnan
