Madras High Court
WP(MD)/1034/2021 of SARAVANAN.C Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 14 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021
CNR:{HCMD010043442021}
C. Saravanan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Secretariat Chennai.
2. The Educational Officer,
Madurai Corporation Arirangar Anna Maligai Madurai 625 002
3. The Head Mistress,
EVRN Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School, Southveli Street, Madurai District-625 001
4. The Accountant General, DMS,
Nandanam, Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.001393/A3/2020, dated .11.2020, signed on 24.11.2020 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents No.2
and 3 to continue the petitioner in General Provident Fund Scheme by transferring the previous General Provident Fund Scheme Account bearing No.29089, getting it transferred from Chennai Corporation.
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Antony Prabhu
for Mr. S. Louis
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Vashik Ali,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1.
Mr. S. Vinayak
for R2 and R3.
Mr. P. Gunasekaran
for R4.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated November 2020, signed on 24th November 2020 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to continue the petitioner in the General Provident Fund Scheme by transferring the previous General Provident Fund Scheme Account bearing No.29089, from Chennai Corporation, within a reasonable time.
2. Heard Mr.Antony Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Vasik Ali, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr.S.Vinayak, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021
3. The facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to a recruitment notification issued in Advertisement No.13/2002 dated 18.06.2002, issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), the petitioner applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Zoology) and successfully got selected and appointed to the Corporation School at Chennai on 13.08.2003 and joined duty on 14.08.2003.
4. The petitioner’s grievance is that because she was employed after 1st April 2003, she had been brought under the contributory pension scheme, and she was denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and when the recruitment process has commenced in 2002 during the prevalence of the Old Pension Scheme, the petitioner should have been kept under the Old Pension Scheme and therefore he prays for allowing of the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Mr.S.Vinayak and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsels appearing for the respondents bring to my notice, a Division Bench Judgement in WP Nos.9027 and 9035 of 2019, in the case of S. Dhanasekaran and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 10.06.2019 and would contend that candidates who got selected under the very same recruitment notification made a similar request and the Division Bench Judgment in the above said judgment denied the said request. Therefore, they state that the issue is squarely covered against the
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021 writ petitioner. The relevant portion of the order is extracted under: - “19. The petitioners have been appointed on 05.06.2003 and 13.08.2003 respectively. As per G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, for persons, who joined government service after 01.04.2003, it has been made compulsory to join contributory pension scheme. In the light of the definition to the words, “vested right”, though Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has relied on W.P. (MD).No.5016 of 2015, dated 27.04.2018, in the case of Joseph Joy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the aspect as to whether there is any vested right and that the same has been taken away has been considered and answered in W.A.No.217 of 2011, etc. batch, we are not inclined to subscribe to the contentions, as admittedly the petitioners have been appointed after 01.04.2003. Case of the petitioners, is not different from the above three decisions, cited supra.
20. In the light of the above decisions and discussion, prayer sought for cannot be granted. Hence, both the writ petitions, are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions, are closed.”
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021
5. The above judgment categorically establishes that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefits sought for, and the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment extracted above.
6. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No psm To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. Finance Dept. Secretariat Chennai
WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021 N.DILIP KUMAR, J. psm WP(MD) No. 1034 of 2021 14-10-2026