AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the third respondent College to forward the
pension proposal, which arose on account of the death of her husband K. Rangasamy, who was working as Watchman in the third respondent
College, It is claimed by the petitioner that unless the pension proposal is forwarded by the third respondent, the official respondents will not be in
a position to grant the same. When the matter came up on 01.08.2012, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get
instructions from the official respondents, In respect of the third respondent, private notice was ordered. Accordingly, M/s. P. Muthukrishnan and
G. Arulmurugan appears for the third respondent. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated Nil 2013 has been filed and on
behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit dated 31.08.2012 has also been filed.
It is seen from the records that the petitioner''s husband was employed as a watchman in the third respondent College, which is an aided private
college governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner''s husband was employed from the year
1975 and he was due to retire from service on 30.11.1999. During the tenure of service, they were residing at No. 5/2, Dhottarayan Koil Street,
Kovail Pudur, which is claimed by the third respondent Management that it belongs to the third respondent College. However, during April 1999,
the third respondent College directed the husband of the petitioner to go before the Medical Board to ascertain the age. This was on the ground
that the petitioner''s husband K. Rangasamy was only 53 years and not reached the age of superannuation.
Subsequent to the same, Late Rangasamy filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P. No. 18164 of 1999 stating that he is entitled to
continue in service. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28.10.2002. Even during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the said Rangasamy,
sent a representation dated 03.10.2000 stating that since the decision of the High Court was getting delayed, without prejudice to his claim in the
writ petition, he has decided to sign the pension papers and therefore, he requested the Management to get his signature and send the proposal to
the second respondent. The said letter was received by the third respondent and an endorsement was made by one v. Srinivasan stating that the
letter was received on 03.10.2000. Unfortunately, the said Rangasamy passed away on 29.10.2000, leaving the petitioner, being wife and five
children including 4 daughters and one son as legal heirs.
After the death of the petitioner''s husband, the third respondent College informed the petitioner that she should submit the Death Certificate as
well as the Legal Heir certificate for claiming pension. The petitioner sent a reply dated 18.05.2001 stating that the Management is not sending the
pension proposal inspite of the fact all records have been submitted to the college. Based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the second
respondent informed the College on 03.09.2001 that despite the fact that an employee of a private college was relieved as early as 30.11.1999,
the Management has not sent pension proposal to help the family and it is regrettable. Therefore, the College was directed to send the proposal at
an early date. The office of the second respondent had sent several communications to the third respondent to forward the proposal, it will not be
out of place to mention that the second respondent office had sent as many as 14 communications starting from the year 2001 to 2009. Despite the
same, the third respondent had not forwarded the pension proposal.
However, on 01.04.2002 the College informed the District Collector that since the writ petition filed by the petitioner''s husband was still
pending before the High Court, there is a legal problem in forwarding the proposals.
In the mean while, the second respondent informed the College that the writ petition itself was dismissed as early as 28.10.2002 and therefore, the
only objection raised does not survive, It is at this juncture, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition, seeking for the relief set out
above.
In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, these facts were admitted and in paragraph 7 to 9, it was averred as follows:-
It is humbly submitted that the 3rd respondent college management had entered into agreements on several occasions regarding several pending
issues of the college including the inordinate delay in the settling of the terminal benefits of the teaching non-teaching staff in the tripartite talks
arranged by various authorities in which the 2nd respondent rjdce was also a signatory. The 3rd respondent College Management did not comply
with the provisions of the agreements on most occasions.
It is humbly submitted that the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore has no objection in forwarding
the proposals of the terminal benefits of the petitioner''s husband Late K. Rangasamy to the office of the Accountant General if the said proposals
were received from the Secretary of the 3rd respondent college.
For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this Hon''ble High Court may be pleased to direct the third respondent college
management to forward the proposals of all terminal benefits to the second respondent namely the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit.
The third respondent, in the counter affidavit stated that the petitioner''s husband did not vacate the quarters even after attaining the age of
superannuation. Even after the death of her husband, the petitioner allegedly squatting on the property belonging the third respondent college,
thereby preventing them from providing accommodation to other employees.
Curiously, in paragraph 4 of the counter, the College took the following stand:-
4....It was also informed to the petitioner that pension proposal of the petitioner would be processed, if the petitioner vacate the quarters and hand
over possession to this respondent. But the petitioner without paying any damages for the last 12 years has been in unauthorised occupation of the
quarters belonging this respondent. Therefore, this respondent could not forward the pension proposal.
It is not clear as to how the Management can refuse to forward the pension proposal, especially, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, an employee of the aided private college is entitled to get pension in terms of Rule 11(9) of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. Rule 11(9) stipulates that every teacher or other person employed in a college, shall, subject to the orders
issued by the Government, from time to time, be eligible for pension. By such statutory right, when the State Government has undertaken to pay
pension to all the approved employees of the aided college, it is not open to the third respondent to withhold such pension claim to be forwarded
to the department. The dispute between the third respondent and the petitioner is purely a Civil dispute and that cannot be a ground for the College
in refusing to perform their statutory function vested under the Act, wherein by which employees have been granted pension by the State
Government, It is also made clear that it is not the third respondent scheme which the petitioner is claiming to enforce and the liability to pay
pension is by the State. The third respondent is merely an authority who forwards the application, if it is otherwise in order. They cannot settle their
private score in the guise of withholding the pension application form. The conduct of the third respondent cannot be appreciated, this is especially
when the office of the second respondent has sent as many as 14 reminders to the third respondent college.
In fact u/s 14A of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, if a college indulges in mal-administration, lapses or irregularities, or neglect
to discharge any of the functions entrusted to such Management, it empowers the State even to appoint a Special officer to run the College, If the
third respondent continues to refuse to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner, this Court will be constrained to direct the Government to
initiate process u/s 14A of the Act. Under the said circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed, with a direction to the third respondent to
forward the pension proposal of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the second
respondent. This can be done without prejudice to their taking action in an appropriate Civil forum for evicting the petitioner and that action has got
no relevance in forwarding the pension proposal of the petitioner, Since the third respondent continuously dodged in sending the pension proposal
for the last 12 years by giving lame reasons and also trying to settle their private score, this Court is constrained to impose cost of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) which shall be paid to the petitioner by the third respondent, within a period of four weeks.