Madras High Court
WP/28553/2024 of R.RANGARAJ Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 16 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 28553 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011766062024}
R.Rangaraj
S/o.Late S.R.Ramasamy,
D.No. 6/258A, School Front Street,
Annadhasampalayam, Illupanatham,
Sirumugai Post, Coimbatore – 641 302.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer
Coimbatore.
4. The Secretary
Mahajana Higher Secondary School,
Mettupalayam 641 301,
Coimbatore District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent herein in Government Letter No. 21045/Paka6(1)/2020-6 dated 09.08.2024 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to include and continue the name of the petitioner under the Teachers Provident Fund (Family Pension) Scheme in Account No. 33647 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Sivalingam
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
No appearance 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 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 by and in which the petitioner request for old pension scheme, was rejected on the ground that he was appointed on 01.04.2003, qua after the implementation of the G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a vacancy for B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) in the fourth respondent school on 19.07.2002. For which the fourth respondent conducted an interview on 24.02.2003 and after verification of the certificate on 07.03.2003, the fourth respondent has appointed him on 01.04.2003. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that absolutely there was no delay on his part and upon the fact having been vacancy since 19.07.2002, the delay caused by the fourth respondent cannot be put against the petitioner to deny the pension. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Sailaja Mary Vs The Secretary to Government, Educational
Department, Government of Tamilnadu and Others reported in MANU/TN/2352/2024 and also the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in B.Vallipaviai vs The State of Tamilnadu and others in WP No.8055 of 2015.
3. Per contra learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there are no abnormal delay on the part of the fourth respondent, and as and when any vacancy arisen, it is for the management to follow certain procedures. In the case on hand, after vacancies arisen, the respondents have sought approval from the School Educational Department and the School Educational Department has given approval to appoint a person on 04.01.2003. Immediately, on getting the approval, the fourth respondent has initiated the recruitment process and they conducted interview on 24.02.2003 and the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.2003. It is the specific contention of the learned Government Advocate that there are no abnormal delay on behalf of the fourth respondent. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.2003. Admittedly, as per G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003 if a person is appointed on or after 01.04.2003, then they are not eligible for old pension scheme as they are not born in pensionable establishment. But it is the contention of the petitioner that having vacancies arisen on 19.07.2002, the delay caused by the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner, his appointment took place with delay on 01.04.2003 and the fourth respondent appointed him on 01.04.2003 instead of 31.03.2003. Though such submissions cannot be faulted, as it is his reasonable expectation, when GO has been passed in G.O.Ms.No.259 giving a cut off date, unless such cut off date is challenged, the petitioner cannot seek pension by imputing delay on the part of the fourth respondent. Though the petitioner contends that there is a delay, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate the delay is not so abnormal. It is only within three months from the date of getting approval from the Government, and within the above period the fourth respondent has appointed the petitioner.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Sailaja Mary Vs The Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Government of Tamilnadu and Others
(cited supra) and B.Vallipaviai vs The State of Tamilnadu and others. In respect of B.Vallipaviai vs The State of Tamilnadu and others the learned Government Advocate would submit that they already filed writ appeal in WA No.221 of 2024 in which an interim stay was granted. However, while looking into the factual position, it was the case of compassionate appointment and that there was a delay in seeking permission to fill up the post.
7. However, in the case in hand, the fourth respondent has immediately sought permission to fill up the post and such permission also given on 04.01.2003. Therefore, the present case is not identical as the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Similarly in Sailaja Mary Vs The Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Government of Tamilnadu and Others (cited supra) the notification was issued after 11 months. Therefore, this Court has considered such a delay in favour of the petitioner. But in case on hand, the interview was commenced on 24.02.2003 whereas the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.2003. Therefore absolutely this Court could not find any abnormal delay, but unfortunately the appointment order was issued on 01.04.2003. In view of above arguments, except showing sympathy to the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to give any relief.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to the pendency of the writ petition, his eligible terminal benefits has not been disbursed. Now that the writ petition is disposed of. Hence, the respondents authorities are directed to disburse the eligible terminal benefits, if the same has not been disbursed, so far, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer Coimbatore.
C.KUMARAPPAN J. MTL WP No. 28553 of 2024 16-09-2026