R.VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 34 petitioners are working as secondary grade teachers in various panchayat union schools coming under Thimiri Block of Vellore District. In this writ petition, the petitioners have chosen to challenge the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.8.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.430, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.8.2004 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to allow them to avail the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioners were all appointed subsequent to these two Government Orders. By the first order in G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 6.8.2003, the State Government made the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules not applicable to Government servants who are appointed on or after 01.04.2003 whether they are either temporary or permanent in the pensionable establishments. For taking such a decision, the State Government had chosen to follow the policy decision taken by the Government of India and that the Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced to all employees who are recruited on or after 1.4.2003. By virtue of the Contributory Pension Scheme, employees' contribution as well as the Government contribution will be spelt out separately by the Government. It is pursuant to the same, G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 6.8.2004 was passed, wherein it was made clear that the contributory pension scheme will be mandatorily applicable to all employees who are recruited on or after 1.4.2003 and they should become the members of the scheme. Each employee will have to pay a monthly contribution of 10% of basic pay and dearness allowance from his salary to the scheme. A matching contribution will be paid by the State Government. The contribution will be recovered from the salary as was being done in the case of GPF. The Accountant General will maintain the account under the scheme. The other guidelines relating to the scheme have been set out in the Government order.

(3.) IN this case, we are not concerned with any difficulties in the operation of the scheme. Insofar as the only question whether the scheme is unconstitutional on the ground raised by the petitioners and whether 42nd Amendment introducing socialism in the preamble makes any difference is concerned, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Excel Wear v. Union of India reported in (1978) 4 SCC 224, wherein in paragraph 24, the Supreme Court had observed as follows :