Employees Cannot Be Denied Pensionary Benefits Due To Administrative Delays, Not Attributable To Them: Madras High Court

Background Facts

S. Achuthan (Petitioner) was appointed as a Maths Teacher through direct recruitment conducted by the Teachers' Recruitment Board for Block Resource Centre Teachers. The petitioner received posting orders dated 26.03.2003, directing him to report for duty within seven days at Anthiyoor Block Resource Centre (Rural), Erode District. Upon reporting for duty on 28.03.2003, the petitioner was informed that there was no vacancy in Maths subject at the assigned location. This led to a delay in joining duty. The petitioner approached the authorities, and a modified appointment order was issued on 31.03.2003, appointing him as a Maths Teacher at Block Resource Centre, Thirumarugal, Nagapattinam District. He joined duty on 01.04.2003.

Meanwhile the Government replaced the old pension scheme with a new Contributory Pension Scheme applicable to employees appointed on or after 01.04.2003. The petitioner made representations to the authorities (Respondent) seeking inclusion in the old pension scheme but was denied the benefit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

The petitioner contended that despite being appointed before 01.04.2003, administrative errors forced him to join duty after the implementation of the new Contributory Pension Scheme, making him ineligible for the old pension scheme. The petitioner argued that the selection process commenced well before the implementation of the new Contributory Pension Scheme and the delay in joining duty was not attributable to him.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that despite being appointed before 01.04.2003, the petitioner joined duty on 01.04.2003, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme as per the government policy. The respondents further contended that delay in the petitioner's joining duty on 01.04.2003 was due to administrative reasons and cannot be attributed to the respondents.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that it was important to consider the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders, for determining pension scheme eligibility. The court relied on the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, where they have emphasized the importance of considering the commencement date of the selection process rather than the date of issuing appointment orders or joining duty, for determining pension scheme eligibility.

The court observed that the selection process for the petitioner commenced long before the implementation of the new pension scheme. The court further observed that the administrative delays, not attributable to the petitioner, caused the delay in joining duty on or after 01.04.2003.

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme, as the delay in joining duty was not his fault. Therefore the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations and bring him under the old Pension Scheme.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case No. : Writ Petition Nos.1006 of 2019

Case Name: S. Achuthan vs. Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Educational Department

Citation:2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Sr.counsel for Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP; Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham, GA and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan