Judgment:
ORDER
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to continue the petitioner's services in the Government High School, Peruvilai, Nagercoil-629 003, Kanyakumari District, in accordance with the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in No. 3215/A3/08, dated 26.06.2008.
2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as History teacher on 18.12.1998 in Government High School, Mundiampakkam, Villupuram District; she worked in various places and finally with the fourth respondent school from 27.06.2003 to 30.06.2008, which is the date of superannuation; as per the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 16.08.2008, where a teacher attains the age of 58 years after 31st May in an academic year, he/she shall continue to render his/her service till the end of that academic year; by the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 26.06.2008, the petitioner was permitted to continue in service from 01.07.2008 up to 31.05.2009 in the fourth respondent school and when she was rendering her service in the fourth respondent school on the basis of extension of service, the fourth respondent, in his proceedings dated 20.11.2008, relieved her from service, which was without putting her on notice or after providing her with an opportunity of being heard. Hence, she filed this Writ Petition.
3. Respondents have filed a counter, stating that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008 while she was working in the fourth respondent school; without taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner, she was permitted to be re-employed till the close of the academic year 2008-2009 vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.06.2008; as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 43 in Chapter 6 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the Government servants retiring or retired from service after completing the net qualifying service of 10 years and above are eligible to earn pension, but, the petitioner has not completed the same; the proposal for grant of pension, pertaining to the petitioner, was submitted by the Headmaster of the school in which the petitioner was working at the time of re-employment to the Accountant General, who, in his proceedings dated 11.03.2008, indicated that the net qualifying service of the said teacher was 9 years 6 months and 14 days only and the average emolument was indicated as 0..0.; the service gratuity of Rs. 1,49,198/- in lumpsum only was sanctioned to the petitioner but, no service pension was sanctioned to her inasmuch as she did not possess the minimum required qualifying service of 10 years; as per rules, while on re-employment, the re-employed teacher will be paid re-employment pay i.e., pay last drawn, less pension eligible; no teacher is eligible for payment of pay last drawn prior to retirement as re-employment pay; hence, as the petitioner was not granted any pension on the ground of not having the minimum net qualifying service, no re-employment pay would be fixed and therefore she could not be granted re-employment; instructions were issued by the Director of School Education to ensure, before granting re-employment, as to whether the retired teachers have 10 years of qualifying service, entitling them for pension and in respect of not fulfilling this requirement, such teachers should not be granted re-employment till the close of the academic year and, on receipt of the said instructions, the order issued, granting re-employment to the petitioner, was cancelled by an order dated 17.11.2008 of the third respondent, pursuant to which the fourth respondent, by his proceedings dated 20.11.2008, relieved the petitioner of her service, which was in accordance with the relevant rules and the government orders and as such, the writ petition, is liable to be dismissed.
4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondents, stating that she has strictly complied with all the requirements enumerated in G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Education, dated 27.10.1988, including the one that the proposal for retirement benefits be submitted one year before the date of retirement, and, therefore, she is entitled for grant of re-employment for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009.
5. The foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has satisfied two of the pre-requisite conditions that the character and conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory and that the teacher should be physically fit to continue in service. However, the guideline that the pension papers should be submitted at least one year before the date of retirement, which is made as the third pre-requisite condition for re-employment, cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner, who has put in lesser service than the service required for pensionary benefits.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would contend that the third pre-requisite condition has not been satisfied by the petitioner and, therefore, her service had been terminated before the completion of the academic year i.e., 31.05.2009.
7. On the above pleadings, I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side; gone through the entire material documents as well as the government orders.
8. A perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioner was appointed as History teacher on 18.12.1998 and she was to be superannuated on 30.06.2008. As such, her service had to be extended up to the end of the academic year i.e., 31.05.2009, which was, accordingly extended by the third respondent by his proceedings dated 26.06.2008. However, the fourth respondent, on the subsequent directives of the third respondent, terminated the service of the petitioner on 20.10.2008, even prior to the completion of her extended service.
9. Now, the question is, whether the third pre-requisite condition viz., submitting the pension papers one year before the date of retirement, as stipulated by the Government Order in G.O. No. 1643, dated 27.10.1988, is applicable to the case on hand.
10. It is the underlined principle that in order to provide proper education to the students, there cannot be any disturbance or discontinuance of the teaching subject during the relevant academic period. If any teacher retires in the middle of the academic year, his/her service has to be extended up to the end of the academic year i.e., till 31st May of that year. The avowed object of this scheme to provide extension of service is to maintain and improve the educational standard of the students and not for any other purpose. Therefore, the same had been taken into account and the service of the petitioner extended. However, the respondents have misconstrued the above Government Order as if ten years of service is necessary for extension of service and that pension papers should be submitted at least one year before the date of retirement. In cases where the teachers have put in less than ten years of service, the third condition, in my view, would not be applicable, as no pre-requisite could be complied with.
11. One more contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case of one Theelenammal, where she put in service of 9 years 2 months and 6 days, had been given extension of service, but, the petitioner has been discriminated in this regard, is tenable.
12. In the light of the above position, I am of the considered opinion that the third pre-requisite condition cannot be made applicable to the petitioner in general and to the teachers, where they are not having required service for pensionary benefits, in particular. Therefore, the order of termination, dated 20.11.2008, passed by the fourth respondent, on the directives of the third respondent, is illegal and the same is set aside.
13. It is seen that this Court, at the time of admission of the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 27.11.2008, passed an interim direction, directing the second respondent to continue the petitioner's service in the fourth respondent school, in accordance with the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 26.06.2008, pursuant to which the petitioner was entitled for continuance of service till 31.05.2009. In spite of such a direction, it is unfortunate to note that the petitioner was not permitted to continue in service.
14. Now, the bottomline grievance of the petitioner is that she had already superannuated from service and worked up to 20.11.2008 and subsequently there was a direction by this Court as prayed for extension of her service and, therefore, she is entitled for monetary benefits up to 31.05.2009, which are unpaid till-date. The said grievance, in my considered opinion, holds good. Therefore, the monetary benefits due to the petitioner for the above period have to be considered in the light of the extension of service as well as the interim direction of this Court. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits due to the petitioner for the extended period of service i.e., up to 31.05.2009, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same are not paid.
15. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. Nos. 1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 are closed.