Madras High Court

A.Manoharan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2021

W.P.No.13407 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 22.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN

W.P.No.13407 of 2021

and
W.M.P.No.14260 of 2021

A.Manoharan ...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.

2. The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road,
Chennai .

3. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Vocational)College Road,
Chennai - 6.

4. The Accountant General,
(Accounts and Establishments),
361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.

5. The Chief Educational Officer,
Salem District.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13407 of 2021

6. The District Educational Officer,
Edapadi,
Salem District.

7. The Correspondent and Headmaster,
Nirmala Higher Secondary School,
Kolathur,
Salem District. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

the records of the 5th respondent order in Na.Ka.No.007272/A3/2021

dated 05.05.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the 5th

respondent to disburse the revised pension by including 50% of service

rendered by the petitioner as Double Part Time Vocational Teacher

from 11.07.1986 to 15.10.1992 within a specified time frame that

may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

For Respondents :Mr.Abishek,
Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th respondent

order in Na.Ka.No.007272/A3/2021 dated 05.05.2021 an quash the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to disburse the

revised pension by including 50% of service rendered by the petitioner

as Double Part Time Vocational Teacher from 11.07.1986 to

15.10.1992 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this

Court.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that he joined as a Double

Part Time Vocational Teacher (Auditing and Accountancy) on

11.07.1986 in Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Kolathur, Mettur

Dam. His service was regularised on time scale of pay on 16.10.1992

and the same had also been approved by the Chief Educational Officer,

Salem District, by proceedings dated 23.02.1993. On attaining the age

of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2016.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of his service as

Part Time Vocational Teacher for the period from 11.07.1986 to

15.10.1992 has not been taken into account while calculating his

pensionary benefits.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim in this writ petition is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

covered by the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court followed by

several single and Division Bench orders.

5. The learned counsel would rely on the latest decision of this

Court dated 09.09.2021 in W.P.No.19083 of 2021. He would rely on

paragraph Nos.6 to 11 which are extracted hereunder.

"6. It is further submitted that the issue has also been considered in the context of Double Part Time Vocational Instructor in W.A.No.359 of 2015 dated 16.03.2015. It is submitted that this Court made a threadbare analysis of the relevant Government Orders and a conclusion was arrived that the Double Part Time Vocational Instructors were also entiltled for the relief. It was submitted that in the case of Single Part Time Vocational Instructor, the Division Bench of Madurai High Court in W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2017 etc., batch dated 21.04.2017, this Court relied upon the decision of this Court in WP.No.11389 of 2003 etc., dated 08.07.2004 wherein the Hon-ble Division Bench held that though the Single Part Time Teachers should be treated equally on par with Double Part Time Teachers and all benefits that were given to the Double Part Time Teachers should be extended to the Single Part Time

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

Teachers as well, Court also observed that the benefit shall not be extended to any other future cases that may be filed on this account, on the ground of delay of laches, since all others have not come up before this Court and remained as fence- sitters.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of laches. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the decision of the Division Bench rendered in R.Kaliyamoorthy (cited supra) cannot apply to the fact of the case.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and peruse the decisions of this Court including the Full Bench and also that of the Division Bench of this Court.

9. Pursuant to order in W.A.No.882 of 2017, etc., batch dated 06.04.2018 (Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai ? 9 and others Vs.K.Pachaiyappan and other) a reference was made to the Full Bench.

The Full Bench was constituted and an order came to be passed / delivered on 03.12.2019. The fact remains that the petitioner was in service of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

respondent from 1987 and his service was made permanent on 16.10.1992. The Full Bench of this Court in the above said judgment delivered on 03.12.1990 as ultimately held as under:-

"46. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows:

i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003.

(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

(iii) In case, a Government employee/servant had also rendered service in non~provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honararium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularised before 01.04.2003, half of service renderd shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits.

(iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10(a) (1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.

(v) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension?."

10. The Full Bench of the Court has made it clear that the above order would apply all the Government servants. The said decision is not confined to only the parties therein. It applies to all the Government servants.

11. Considering the same, this writ petition is disposed by allowing the writ petition as prayed for. However, there shall not be entitled for any interest on the settlement of the retiral/terminal benefits as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court of Madurai High Court in its order dated 13.08.2020 in W.A.(MD).No.517 of 2020."

6. In view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court,

the rejection of the petitioner's claim as contained in the order passed

by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.007272/A3/2021 dated 05.05.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13407 of 2021

is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to revise the

pension of the petitioner by including 50% of service rendered by him

as Double Part Time Teacher.

7. The respondents/ competent authorities are directed to pass

appropriate orders in this regard within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.