IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-4-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.8400 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 B.Devika ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Indian Institute of Technology represented by its Director Chennai 36. 2. The Director of Technical Education Chennai 25. 3. The Registrar Anna University Sardar Patel Road Chennai 25. 4. The Accountant General Nandanam, Chennai 35. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to refix the pension due to the petitioner's husband late V.M.Balasundaram after taking into consideration of the past services rendered by him at College of Engineering, Guindy as Mechanic between 1.8.1956 to 17.9.65 and also pay the arrears after fixation of proper pension thereby implementing the G.O.3D No.42, Education Science and Technology Department dated 24.4.1996. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Girish kumar For Respondents : Mr.Karthik Mukundan (R1) Mr.Shivashanmugam, Govt. Advocate (R2) Mr.Gowarthan for M/s.Row and Reddy (R3) Mrs.T.Selvarani (R4) O R D E R
The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to refix the pension due to the petitioner’s husband late V.M.Balasundaram after taking into consideration of the past services rendered by him at College of Engineering, Guindy as Mechanic between 1.8.1956 to 17.9.65 and also pay the arrears after fixation of proper pension thereby implementing the G.O.3D No.42, Education Science and Technology Department dated 24.4.1996.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner’s husband late V.M.Balasundaram was originally appointed as Mechanic in the College of Engineering, Guindy 25. His appointment order is dated 31.7.1956. He worked with the College of Engineering, Guindy from 1.8.1956 till 17.9.1965. He was relieved from the said post by the proceedings of the Principal, College of Engineering, Guindy dated 17.9.1965 at his request to resign from the said post. Thereafter, he applied to the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras the first respondent herein for appointment to the post of Mechanic Grade B (Department of Civil Engineering ). He was appointed on 20.9.1965 and he retired on 30.6.1995. While he was in service in the Indian Institute of Technology, the first respondent, he made a representation dated 5.7.1991 to include his service rendered as mechanic at the College of Engineering, Guindy during the period 1.8.1956 to 17.9.1965 for the purpose of calculating his service and retirement benefits. The Indian Institute of Technology, the first respondent sent a letter dated 15.4.1992 to the Director of Technical Education, Chennai 25 requesting them to grant concurrence to meet the proportionate liability in respect of retirement benefits to be granted to the petitioner’s husband Balasundaram for the service rendered by him at the College of Engineering, Guindy. There was a further indication in the said letter that the amount of proportionate liability will be intimated to the Director of Technical Education for arranging payment to the Institute so as to disburse the same along with the retirement benefits extended by the first respondent. Based on the correspondence as above, the Department of Technical Education and Science and Technology issued G.O.3D 42 dated 24.4.1996 which reads as follows:
G.O.3D No.42 Dated 24.4.1996 From the Director of Technical Education, Lr.No.23773/A6/92, dated 20.10.93. ORDER
Thiru.V.M.Balasundaram joined in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 20.9.65 after resigning the post of Mechanic held by him at Government Engineering College, Guindy from 1.8.56. He has now requested to count the past services rendered by him at Government Engineering College , Guindy from 1.8.56 to 17.9.65 for purpose of pension. He has already retired from service on 30.6.95 After Noon.
2. The Director of Technical Education in his letter read above has recommended to count the past services rendered by Thiru. V.M.Balasundaram as Mechanic at the Government Engineering College, Guindy, for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
3. The Government have examined the matter in detail and have decided to accept the recommendation of the Director of Technical Education. The Government accordingly direct that, the past services rendered by Thiru. V.M.Balasundaram as Mechanic at Government Engineering College, Guindy from 1.8.56 to 17.9.65 be counted for the purpose of pension in relaxation of Rule 41 of General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 48 of General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services contained in Tamil Nadu Service Manual Vol. I of 1987 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 82 of Tamail Nadu Pension rules 1978, the Governor of Tamil Nadu herby relaxes the Rule 41 of General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and Rule 23(1) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 respectively in favour of Thiru.V.M.Balasundaram, so as to count the past services rendered by the individual as Mechanic at Government Engineering College, Guindy from 1.8.56 to 17.9.65 for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner, therefore, was granted the pensionary benefits for the period of 1.8.1956 to 17.9.1965 during which he rendered service as Mechanic at Government of Engineering Guindy. In spite of the said G.O. having been passed, it appears that no steps were taken by the second respondent and the employee died in the meanwhile on 12.12.2000. Thereafter, the widow of late Balasundaram has been pursuing the matter by way of representation. One such representation is dated 23.10.2007. In spite of such representations, there is no response. The first respondent, Indian Institute of Technology, on its part addressed a letter on 3.12.2007 to the Director of Technical Education, the second respondent reminding the authority that the claim of the widow of late Balasundaram is pending for a long time with a request to take suitable steps to transfer the pensionary liabilities for the services rendered by the said Balasundaram so as to enable the Institute to count his past service for pensionary benefits to be given to the widow of late Balasundaram. Since the representation of the petitioner and the recommendation of the first respondent did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. After notice, it was initially informed by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the fourth respondent has to furnish the papers so as to enable them to proceed further in the matter. This appears to be based on a misconception as the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that they are no way connected with the processing of the pensionary claims of late V..Balasundaram, The relevant portion of the counter reads as follows:-
“4. At the outset, it is submitted that this respondent is not the authority competent to issue pension payment order of retiring employees of the Indian Institute of Technology.
........... ......... ........... ............ ......... ........... ............ ......... ...........
7. It is also submitted that, this respondent has no authority to issue authorisation orders of pensionary benefits of Anna University employees. Further, the petitioner’s husband served for less than 10 years under college of Engineering, which, per se, does not qualify for pension, unless reckoned with the IIT Service.
5. The officer of the fourth respondent is present in the court and clarifies the same. Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education produced a letter which is relevant for deciding the claim of the widow for grant of pensionary benefits. The said letter dated 11.3.1992 is addressed by the Anna University to the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology the first respondent herein and the gist of the letter reads as follows:-
“I invite your attention to the references cited.
I furnish hereunder the service particulars pertaining to Thiru V.M.Balasundaram, formerly Mechanic in this institution culled out from the pay bills available.
i) Thiru V .M. Balasundaram was temporarily appointed as Mechanic with effect from 1.8.56 F.N. in the scale of pay of Rs.40-2-50-1-65 in procs. No.5/A2/56 dt. 31.7.56 of the Principal, College of Engineering, Madras.
ii) He resigned and was relieved of his duties in this institution on 17.9.65 A.N.
Thus, he worked in the College as Mechanic from 1.8.56 to 17.9.65.
His Service Register and connected files relating to him are not available at this distance of time.
The Director of Technical Education, Madras 25 may be addressed regarding payment of proportionate liability, referred to in your letter cited as during the period he worked in the College, it was a government institution under the administrative control of the Director of Technical Education, Madras.
This University was formed only with effect from 4.9.78.
6. This letter dated 11.3.1992 signed on 13.3.1992 and despatched on 17.3.1992 provides the details of the service rendered by late V.M.Balasundaram and the salary initially drawn at the time of the appointment. This, according to the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would be relevant to determine the pensionary liability.
7. In view of the specific G.O. already issued by the Government which clearly relaxes applicability of Rule 41 of General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and Rule 23(1) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 respectively in favour of late V.M.Balasundaram so as to count the past services rendered by the individual as Mechanic at Government Engineering College, Guindy for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the second respondent who is the the competent authority to determine the pensionary benefits, is directed to determine the pensionary benefits payable to the deceased employee and disburse the pensionary liability in favour of the first respondent so as to enable the petitioner, the wife of late employee to draw the pensionary benefits including the past dues. The second respondent is directed to complete the process within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is allowed as above. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pleaded that in view of the belated determination of pension for the period from 1.8.1956 to 17.9.1965 and further delay caused till the disposal of the claim before this court, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss by way of interest, which aspect may be considered by this court. Though a prayer to that effect has not been made, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the second respondent in this regard separately after culmination of the proceedings for the pensionary benefits so as to enable the second respondent to consider such claim on merits and in accordance with law.
11.4.2011
Index:No
Internet:Yes
krr/
To
1. The Director
Indian Institute of Technology
Chennai 36.
2. The Director of Technical Education
Chennai 25.
3. The Registrar
Anna University
Sardar Patel Road
Chennai 25.
4. The Accountant General
Nandanam, Chennai 35.
R.SUDHAKAR ,J.
Krr/
W.P.No.8400 of 2008
DATED:- 11-4-2011