Madras High Court
N.Parameswaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 August, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.10814 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.10814 of 2022
N.Parameswaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 09.
2. The Joint Director (Vocational) of
School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay Educational District,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated
03.12.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.5102/V1/E4/2020 and third respondent dated
15.12.2021 bearing Na.Ka.No.2003/Aha3/2021 and quash the same and
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.10814 of 2022
directing the respondents to take the 50% of the part time service rendered by
the petitioner i.e., from 09.07.1980 to 01.04.1990 along with the regular
service for the pension benefits i.e., for the period of 32 years 12 days based
on the judgment dated 09.04.2014 based on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.517 of 2020, dated 13.08.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed by a Vocational Instructor
seeking to consider the services rendered by him as a single part time and
double part time Vocational Instructor for the purposes of calculating
pensionary benefits.
2. According to the writ petitioner, he was appointed as a single part
time Vocational Instructor on 09.07.1980 and he was appointed as a double
part time Vocational Instructor on 01.09.1983. He had continued the post of
double part time Vocational Instructor till 31.03.1990. His services were
regularized with effect from 01.04.1990. The petitioner had attained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
superannuation on 31.05.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the
authorities seeking to reckon 50% of services put up by him as a single part
time and double part time Vocational Instructor. However, the said request has
been rejected by the authorities, on the ground that the said benefit is
applicable only to the teachers, who have already approached the Court.
Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The respondents herein had filed a counter contending that the
teacher after having retired in the year 2017 had addressed a communication
on 06.07.2021, seeking the said benefits and approached this Court belatedly
in the year 2022. Therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed on the
ground of latches.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The fact that the petitioner's services were regularized on 01.04.1990
is not in dispute. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.517 of 2020, dated 13.08.2020 has confirmed the orders passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos.15469 to 15476 of 2018, wherein,
the writ Court had directed the authorities to consider the 50% of the services
rendered as a single part time/ double part time Vocational instructors for the
purposes of calculating pension. However, in paragraph No.10 of the order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that if the concerned
teacher had approached the Court belatedly they will not be entitled for any
interest. The judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in 2019 (6)
CTC 705 (The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to
Government, Public Works Department and two others
Vs.R.Kaliyamoorthy) has held that the Government Employee/servant who
has rendered non-provisional service on consolidated pay and whose services
were regularized before 01.04.2003, half of the services rendered shall be
counted for the purpose of confirming pensionary benefits.
6. In view of the fact that the eligibility of teachers to receive pension is
a continuing cause of auction, the question of limitation or laches would not
arise. The only impediment for the writ petitioner is that he would not receive
any interest for the belated disbursement of the arrears of the pensionary
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the above said facts, this Writ Petition stands allowed
directing the authorities to consider 50% of the services rendered by the
petitioner during the period between 09.07.1980 and 31.03.1990, for the
purpose of calculation of pension and thereafter, proceed to disburse the
pensionary benefits. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to any
interest, if the disbursement of pensionary benefits are effected within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.
06.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 09.
2. The Joint Director (Vocational) of
School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 06.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay Educational District,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
