Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs T Karunakaran on 13 March, 2025
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.532 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.532 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4126 of 2025
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
D.P.I.Compound, College Road,
Chennai - 600 061.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Office of the District Elementary Education,
Ottanchathiram. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. T Karunakaran
2. The Principal Accountant General,
Office of the Accountant General (A and E), Tamil Nadu,
No.361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.532 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5321 of 2024, dated 17.04.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.R.Govindaraj
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition
challenging the order passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.5321 of 2024, dated
17.04.2024.
2. The Writ Petition was filed for Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents to to count 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner as part
time vocational teacher (from 12.09.1988 to 01.06.1997) for pensionary
benefits and direct the respondents to refix the pension and pay the revised
pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
3. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition are that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner was appointed as part time
vocational instructor on 12.09.1988 on permanent basis in Panchayat Union
Middle School, Athimarathu Valasu, Thoppampatti Union, Dindigul District.
He was made full time worker on 02.06.1997. He retired on 31.05.2019. Thus,
he has put in service as part time vocational instructor for 8 years, 8 months and
13 days and full time vocational instructor for 21 years, 11 months and 29 days.
The said part time service was not considered, even though the 1 st respondent /
writ petitioner has rendered on full time basis. Hence the petitioner is seeking
to consider the same. The writ court had considered and directed the appellants
to count 50% of the said service and grant pension. Aggrieved over the said
order, the Education Department has preferred the present appeal.
4. The issue was already considered elaborately by another Co-
ordinate Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.347 of 2021 batch, wherein, the
government appeals and review applications were dismissed. The relevant
portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“9. The issue of regularization of Single Part Time and Double Part
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
Time Vocational Instructors have prolonged history of litigations.
Based on the orders of this Hon’ble Court, the Government had
issued G.O.Ms.No.712 dated 28.05.1990, G.O.Ms.No.834 dated
23.09.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 15.07.1999, whereby, the
service of the Vocational Instructors in both Single Part Time and
Double Part Time were periodically regularized during the years
1990, 1994 and 1999.
10.Again the teachers demanded to count the past service and filed
several writ petitions. After considering the demand, the Government
had issued G.O. to count 50% of the part time Vocational Instructor
service but granted the benefits only for the “Double Part Time
Instructors” and denied the benefits to “Single Part Time
Instructors”. The teachers who were serving as Single Part Time
Instructors had preferred several writ petitions and the same was
allowed. Aggrieved over, the Government had filed writ appeals. The
Hon’ble Division Bench after hearing the arguments of the
Government in W.A.Nos.882 of 2017 batch vide order dated
06.04.2018 had specifically held that the benefits shall be granted to
the persons who had filed the writ petitions and denied the benefits
for fence sitters. The said finding was rendered since the same was
touching the financial implication of the State. The relevant portion of
the order is extracted here under:
15.In terms of the above discussions, we dispose of the writ appeals
as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
(i)50% of the services rendered by the respondents herein, as Part
Time Vocational Instructor (either as Single Part time or Double Part
Time Vocational Instructor), shall be counted for the purpose of
computing pension and other retiral benefits.
(ii)The above said benefit shall be extended only to the respondents in
these writ appeals and for the persons similarly situated like that of
the respondents herein, whose cases are pending before this Court.
Thus, it is made clear that the above said benefit shall not be extended
to any other future cases that may be filed on this account, on the
ground of delay and laches, since all along they have not come up
before this Court and remained as fence-sitters. It is also needless to
point out that allowing such cases would amount to opening the
pandora's box, touching upon the financial implications of the State.
11.Based on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench,
the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.194 School Education
Department dated 12.09.2018, wherein the benefits were granted to
the persons who had filed the cases.
12. Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed by persons who had
not filed any writ petitions earlier, thereby praying to grant the same
benefits. The contention of subsequent claimants is that the conditions
stated in the G.O. is against Article 14 of the Constitution, since they
are similarly placed persons and they are entitled to the same
benefits. The said writ petitions were allowed and the Learned Single
Judge had held the said G.O.Ms.No.194 is discriminatory.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
13. Aggrieved over, the Government had preferred writ appeal in W.A.
(MD)No.689 of 2020 and the Hon’ble Division Bench had held as
under:
“8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the first
respondent herein/writ petitioner is similar to that of the respondents
in the above writ appeals and though it was open to the
appellants/official respondents 1 to 4 to confer the similar benefit
without asking them to approach the Court, they were asked to get
individual orders, may be on account of financial liability. The factual
aspects pertaining to service condition of the first respondent/writ
petitioner are not under dispute. The issue relating to delay and
laches depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and
there cannot be any straight jacket formula while considering the said
issue and in the case on hand, the same cannot be put against the first
respondent/writ petitioner in the light of the settled position of law
that persons similarly placed have to be conferred with the same
benefits without driving them to the Court.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the first
respondent/writ petitioner, in the light of the legal position being
settled as to the entitlement of the first respondent/writ petitioner, this
Court is of the considered view that in terms of the above cited two
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, this writ appeal
deserves dismissal.”
14. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order, the present review application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
in Rev.Appl.(MD)No.39 of 2021 is filed. The learned Additional
Advocate General submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.
(MD)No.882 of 2017 has not fixed the cutoff date to count 50% of
service. But, it is only freezing the rights of the employees. Hence in
the present batch of cases, the employees who have not approached
the Hon'ble Court will not be entitled to. We are afraid such
contention cannot be entertained, since it would amount to
discriminatory. Even if the said contention of the Government is
accepted for the sake of argument, then the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
would be staring at the Government. Under Rule 11 and 11-A of the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the persons who were rendering service in
provincialized, consolidated, daily wages in the whole-time
employment, thereafter, regularized in the substantive post, then the
employee is entitled to calculate 50% past service. The Hon’ble Full
Bench in W.A.No.158 of 2016 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
Kaliyamoorthy and others reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 [(2020) 2
MLJ 369] has held that if the employees who are employed in whole
time employment in any provincialized, consolidated, daily wages,
then had absorbed in the substantive post prior to 2003 are entitled to
take 50% of the past service. In the present case, even if the persons
are working in Single Part Time, they were serving as whole-time
employment and the issue is settled in several writ petitions. All these
employees were absorbed in the regular service in the sanctioned
vacancy prior to 2003. In such circumstances, as per Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, the employees are entitled to calculate 50% past
service, if they are regularized prior to 2003. In all these cases, the
employees were regularized periodically from 1990, 1994, 1999 etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
and admittedly they were regularized prior to 2003.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of
the Review Applicants relying on W.A.No.882 of 2017 is not tenable.
Since the amended Rule 11 and 11A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
is to all Departments including the Education Department. The
Government cannot pick and choose and extend the benefits to the
particular persons by excluding others which is discrimination and
violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Review
Applications and the Writ Appeals are devoid of merits. Hence, all the
Review Applications and the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that
the Government is financially constrained, therefore this Review
Applications and Writ Appeals are filed. This Court is inclined to
grant a long time to the Government to comply with the order.
Therefore, the Government is directed to consider the claim of the
respondents and grant the benefits by adding 50% of past service in
their regular service within a period of six (6) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
18. With the above direction, the Review Applications and Writ
Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
5. Following the aforesaid order, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly,
dismissed. The order passed by the Writ Court is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
13.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
D.P.I.Compound, College Road,
Chennai - 600 061.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Office of the District Elementary Education,
Ottanchathiram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 04:20:34 pm )
