Madras High Court

N.Omena vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 5 March, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                    W.P.(MD)No.5909 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 05.03.2025

                                                      CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                         W.P.(MD)No.5909 of 2025

                N.Omena                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
                  Department of School Education,
                  Fort St.George,
                  Chennai – 9.

                2.The Director of School Education,
                  O/o.The Director of School Education,
                  DPI Campus, College Road,
                  Chennai – 6.

                3.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary),
                  O/o.The Joint Director of School Education,
                  DPI Campus, College Road,
                  Chennai – 6.

                4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
                  O/o.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
                  361, Anna Salai,
                  Chennai – 600 018.

                5.The Chief Educational Officer,
                  O/o.The Chief Educational Officer,
                  Kanykumari District.



                1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis           ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )
                                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.5909 of 2025

                6.The Correspondent,
                  St.Joseph's M.S.C Higher Secondary School,
                  Chellamkanom,
                  Kanaykumari District.                                                      ... Respondents


                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include 50% of the
                service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Part Time Vocational Instructor
                (Nursing) consolidated pay from 16.07.1981 to 04.10.1996 along with regular
                service for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service of pension and
                disburse the monetary benefits along with arrears and other consequential
                benefits to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.


                                     For Petitioner            : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman

                                     For R1 to R3, R5          : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
                                                                 Government Advocate

                                     For R4                    : Mr.G.Karthick

                                                     ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to include 50% of the service rendered by the

petitioner in the post of Part Time Vocational Instructor (Nursing) consolidated

pay from 16.07.1981 to 04.10.1996 along with regular service for the purpose

of calculation of qualifying service of pension and disburse the monetary

benefits along with arrears and other consequential benefits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 16.07.1981 as part time

vocational instructor (Nursing) and continued in the said post till 04.10.1996.

Subsequently, he was absorbed as full time vocational instructor and retired

from service on 31.03.2012.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the nature of performance of duties

and responsibility of vocational instructor (Nursing) involves whole time

employment only. The post of vocational instructor (Nursing), though initially

termed as part-time, required whole time service only, as they were performing

all the duties and responsibilities. After prolonged correspondence, the

petitioner was brought on time scale of pay vide G.O.Ms.No.712 dated

28.05.1990.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she rendered continuous

service from initial appointment in the sanctioned post with necessary

qualification till regularization, her service for the period from 16.07.1981 to

04.10.1996 as part time vocational instructor (Nursing) has not been taken as

qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The services rendered in the regular

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

time scale of pay alone has been taken as qualifying service, which is arbitrary

and discriminatory.

5. It is further stated that the issue was already considered by a Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1702 of 2010, dated 29.09.2010 and held that

the Vocational Instructor like the petitioner is entitled for counting 50% of part

time service towards the pensionary benefits. In compliance of the said order,

the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 18.07.2013 and

G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 22.07.2013, which provides for counting of 50% of

service in part time vocational instructor post as qualifying service towards the

pensionay benefits, along with the regular service. In the said Government

Order, it is stated that since the employees covered under the above said

Government Orders are Part Time Vocational Instructors, one of the condition

in G.O.Ms.No.408 dated 25.08.2009 is relaxed i.e., the condition which says

that employment should be for whole time. In this case, the petitioner is a part

time vocational instructor. Hence, relaxation is necessary and she is entitled to

count 50% of part time service towards pensionary benefits as qualifying

service.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.359 of 2015 has held that

double part time vocational instructor's post is a full time employment and the

double part time vocational instructors are entitled to count 50% of service

along with the regular service. A Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras

High Court in W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2017 has held that the single and double

part time vocational instructor has to be treated equally and that the post of

single part time is a full time employment and the single and double part time

vocational instructors are entitled to count 50% of service rendered on

consolidated pay along with the regular service for the purpose of pensionary

benefits. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the

petitioner was appointed only as a part-time Vocational Instructor on a

honorarium pay system and not a full time instructor on consolidated pay

system. Since the petitioner was working as part-time Vocational instructor

(Nursing) just for two hours per day and not working as full time employee on

consolidated pay and further the petitioner has not made any claim for counting

50% of his services rendered as part time vocational instructor, she is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

entitled for counting 50% of his services between 16.07.1981 to 04.10.1996 as

qualifying service for the pensionary benefits.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed on 16.07.1981 as part

time vocational instructor (Nursing) and continued as part time vocational

instructor (Nursing) till 04.10.1996. Thereafter, she was absorbed as full time

vocational instructor and she retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.03.2012. After retirement, the petitioner is getting her

pensionary benefits.

10. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is that as to whether the

petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 50% of services rendered as Part Time

Vocational Instructor for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for

pensionary benefits or not.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

11. In fact, the issue involved in this Writ Petition was already dealt by

this Court on several occasions and rendered judgments in favour of the

employees and those decisions had attained finality. The Division Bench of this

Court by its judgment dated 16.03.2015 in W.A.No.359 of 2015 made a detailed

analysis of the relevant Government Orders and arrived at a conclusion that the

Double Part Time Vocational Instructors are entitled for 50% of the services

rendered by them and the same shall be counted for the purpose of computing

pension and other retirement benefits. In respect of Single Part Time Vocational

Instructors, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 21.04.2017 in

WA.(MD).No.392 of 2017 held that Single Part Time Vocational Instructors

should be treated equally with the double part time teachers and all benefits that

were given to the Double Part Time Vocational Instructors should be extended

to the Single Part Time Vocational Instructors as well. The said decisions have

attained finality.

12. Having taken into consideration of the relevant facts, Government

Orders and judgments of this Court, a Division Bench of this Court by its

judgment dated 06.04.2018 in WA.Nos.882 of 2017 and batch held that Part

Time Vocational Instructors (either Single or Double Part Time Vocational

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

Instructors) are entitled for counting 50% of services rendered by them for the

purpose of computing pension and other retirement benefits.The said judgment

has also attained finality.

13. In the present case also, the petitioner worked as Part Time

Vocational Instructor from 16.07.1981 to 04.10.1996 and thereafter, she was

absorbed as full time Vocational Instructor. Therefore, this Court taking into

consideration of the orders issued by the Government in favour of the similarly

situated persons, wherein 50% of the part time service rendered by them was

counted with regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and also by

following the judgments rendered by several Division Benches on this aspect as

stated supra, holds that the respondents have to count 50% of the part time

services rendered by the petitioner with the regular service for the purpose of

pensionary benefits.

14. Therefore, the respondents have to pay the arrears of pension to the

petitioner by counting 50% of the services rendered by her as Part Time

Vocational Instructor.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 11:58:23 am )

15. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is allowed with the

following directions:

The respondents are directed to count 50% of the services of

the petitioner for a period from 16.07.1981 to 04.10.1996 as Part

Time Vocational Instructor along with regular service as full time

Vocational Instructor from 05.10.1996 to 31.03.2012 as qualifying

service and fix pensionary benefits and grant arrears of pension and

other pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs.