T.Chinnadurai, v. The Principal,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2015 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Appeal(MD) No.1254 of 2015 T.Chinnadurai ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore 18.

2.The Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlement) Tamil Nadu Office, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai 18.

... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.08.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.14674 of 2015. Prayer in WP(MD). 14674/ 2015 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.2435/N5/2015 dated 13.05.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to sanction the pension of the petitioner herein with effect from 29.07.1993. For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayakumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) The writ appeal arises out of an order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking pensionary benefits. 2.Heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 3.The appellant was appointed as a Refractionist on 04.01.1978. He resigned from service on 04.08.1993. In the year 2015, he came up with a writ petition challenging an order refusing to grant him pension. Stating that the request was made after more than 20 years, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.

4.Contending that the right to receive pension is a continuing cause of action and that limitation cannot put against him, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has come up with the above writ appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.At the outset, the appellant has omitted to take note of the provision contained in the statutory rules. Rule 23(1) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 makes it clear that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service. There is only one exception to the said rule. If the resignation is for taking up another appointment with prior permission, the forfeiture stipulated in Sub Rule (1) will not operate.

6.The case of the appellant is not that he resigned for taking up another appointment. Therefore, his past service upon resignation got forfeited.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon two decisions of two Division Benches. But unfortunately, both of those decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. The very claim of the appellant is for payment of pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Therefore, he must establish as to how his case would fall under the proviso to Rule 23(1). Once this is not done, the forfeiture operates. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Co) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.

To

1. The Principal,Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore 18.

2.The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu Office, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18 +1CC to Mr.R.Vijayakumar,Advocate, SR.No. 68013 +1CC to The Special Government Pleader SR.No. 67959. Writ Appeal(MD) No.1254 of 2015 26.11.2015 AM/04.12.2015/NGM.SS/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/