IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P. No.10446 of 2009

Dr.C.S.Rangarajan Vs. University of Madras Rep. by Registrar Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

Petitioner.

Respondent

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of superannuation pension in the context of rule 3 (ii) read with proviso (ii) thereto of Gratuity cum pension cum provident fund cum insurance scheme for teachers of the University of Madras and sanction pension to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of his retirement namely 31.05.1997. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent : Mrs.G.Thilakavathy

ORDER
The petitioner joined University of Madras as Lecturer in the Department of Sociology on 26.07.1988. At the time of entry into service, the petitioner had qualification of Ph.D. and was 51 years of age. The petitioner was appointed by relaxing the age limit for appointment of lecturers, in the University. 2. The petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer on 25.07.1990 and thereafter, was promoted as Senior Lecturer with effect from 26.07.1993 on completion of five years of service. This was done by relaxing the condition by eight years experience for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer, in view of the fact that the petitioner had qualification of Ph.D., at the time of entry into service. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.05.1997. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of his retirement, his services were availed by the University for the purposes of guidance to Ph.D. students, who started their Ph.D. under the guidance of the petitioner upto 2007.
4. The fact that the petitioner continued to guide Ph.D. Students after retirement is not

relevant for the purpose of relief, claimed by the petitioner, as the petitioner cannot take benefit of service, rendered in University, after attaining age of superannuation. 5. The petitioner, though was granted gratuity, but pension under the gratuity cum pension cum provident fund cum insurance scheme for teachers, has been denied to the petitioner, on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of qualifying service till

date of retirement. 6. It is not in dispute that under Rule 28, the teacher is eligible for pension only, if he has not less than 10 years of qualifying service or before completion of 60 years of age i.e. the age of superannuation. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has completed actual service of eight years ten months, however, for the purpose of qualifying service, it has to be taken, that the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of qualifying service, in view of the definition of qualifying service under the scheme of pension. The scheme defines qualifying service as: "(ii) 'Qualifying service' shall mean service rendered in the University of Madras in a substantive post including the period spent on probation. All services rendered under the University on a full time basis in a temporary or officiating capacity, following without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall count as a qualifying service. Besides, a teacher shall be eligible for the qualifying service as additional period equal to the actual period not exceeding one fourth the length of his service, or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds 30 years, or a period of 5 years whichever is least."
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served in the University from 26.07.1988 till

31.05.1997. If additional one fourth length of his service is counted, qualifying service would be more than 10 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is right in contending that pension has been wrongly denied to the petitioner, even though he is eligible for grant of pension under the Rules. The definition of Qualifying Service leaves no manner of doubt that an employee falling short of ten years, has to be given benefit of < of length of service in addition to actual service. The scheme having beneficial legislation, has to be interpreted in favour of employee.
9. The writ petition is opposed by the University by placing reliance on the rules

prescribing that eligibility for pension is 10 years of service , and that the benefit of pension is not available to those teachers, who have not completed 10 years of service or those who have failed to acquire requisite qualification prescribed for recruitment to the service when appointed in relaxation of rules. 10. The case of the petitioner does not fall under those category, as admittedly, the petitioner had requisite qualification at the time of appointment, therefore was not required to acquire any qualification to be eligible for appointment. The petitioner is also deemed to have 10 years of qualifying service to his credit, as per the definition of qualifying service, under the scheme, referred to above. 11. The action of the respondent in denying pension to the petitioner, by treating him not to be eligible for want of qualifying service, is therefore, violative of the scheme of pension. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Writ of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner, by treating him of having 10 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefit of arrears of pension from due date till payment. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sd. Sub.Asst Registrar

To: The Registrar University of Madras Chepauk Chennai 600005 1 cc To Mr. Sugumar R.Rajulu, Advocate, SR 9251 1 cc To Mrs. G.Thilakavathy, Advocate, SR 9251

07.02.2011 Index: Yes Internet: Yes

ar