Prof.C.N.

Venkatachalam vs The Secretary on 29 July, 2009

Madras High Court Prof.C.N.Venkatachalam vs The Secretary on 29 July, 2009 DATE: 29-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.26083 of 2005 (O.A.No.899 of 2001) Prof.C.N.Venkatachalam .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Secretary, Department of Education (Higher) Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, D.P.I.Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.899 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.26083 of 2005, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to revise the pension of the petitioner as Rs.6000/- in the new pay scale of Rs.12000-420-15300, applicable to Lecturer (Selection Grade), which is the post corresponding to the post of Professor held by the petitioner at the time of his retirement instead of Rs.4000/in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500, which is presently paid with effect from 1.4.1999 and consequently, revise the family pension as Rs.3,600/- instead of Rs.2,400/- and further direct he respondents to pay the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner forthwith and order respondents to pay the cost of this application. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kuberan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/976614/

Prof.C.N.Venkatachalam vs The Secretary on 29 July, 2009

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 7.11.1999, rejecting the request of the petitioner to consider him as a Retired Lecturer (Selection Grade) for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits, in view of the revision of the pay scale and the Career Advancement Scheme, in accordance with the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.200, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.5.1999. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had retired from service, as a Professor of Chemistry, Government Arts College Karur, on 01.02.1980, after having been in service for more than 33 years, the revised pension of the petitioner should have been fixed at Rs.6,000/-, in the revised pay scale of Rs.12,000-120-15,300, as applicable to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and consequently, the family pension, to be paid to the petitioner, should have been Rs.3600/-. 4. The leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.200, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.5.1999, had prescribed that the revised pension shall be calculated at 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced, with effect from 1.1.1996, applicable to the post last held by the employee, at the time of his retirement. However, the second respondent by his order, dated 07.11.1999, had sanctioned the revised pension, erroneously, at Rs.4,000/- per month as per the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13,500, applicable to the post of lecturer, previously held by the petitioner, instead of fixing the same in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-120-15,200, applicable to lecturer (Selection Grade) 5. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner was drawing the scale of pay of Rs.700-40-1100-50-1300, which was revised to Rs.2200-4000, vide G.O.Ms.No.1785, Education, dated 5.12.1988, with effect from 1.1.1986, and it was in turn revised to Rs.3,000-275-13500, vide G.O.Ms.No.111, Higher Education Department, dated 24.3.1999, with effect from 1.1.1996. As per the Government Order, under the Career Advancement Scheme, a Lecturer would move to the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) if he puts in six years of service and he would move to the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade), if a lecturer (Senior Scale), had put in five years of service. In addition to the said requirement for a Lecturer to move to the Senior Scale he has to undergo one Refresher Course and one Orientation Course and for a Lecturer to move to the Selection Grade he has to undergo two Refresher courses. Since the petitioner had retired from service prior to 1.1.1986 he cannot be treated on par with Lecturer (Selection Grade) 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 7.11.1999, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the second respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition, and if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, in view of the revision of pay scale and the Career Advancement Scheme, as prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.200, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.5.1999., within a specified time. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 7.11.1999, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the second respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, within fifteen days from today, along with the necessary enclosures to show that the petitioner had retired from service on 1.2.1980, as a Lecturer Selection Grade and on receipt of the said representation, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law and in view of the revision of pay scale and the Career Advancement Scheme applicable to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.200, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.5.1999, by considering the request of the petitioner, afresh, within eight weeks, thereafter. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/976614/ 2

Prof.C.N.Venkatachalam vs The Secretary on 29 July, 2009

csh To 1.The Secretary, Department of Education (Higher) Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, D.P.I.Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/976614/