w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Secretary to the Government, Department of Education Fort St. George, Chennai & Others v/s P. Dhanapackiathai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- H H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301WB1997PTC083294

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80300DL2007PTC171109

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GEORGE AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U51109KL1937PTC000027

Company & Directors' Information:- C S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211DL2004PTC125711

Company & Directors' Information:- S D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80903MH2004PTC147463

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

Company & Directors' Information:- P W EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80212TN2009PTC072151

Company & Directors' Information:- A S C EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80904TG2015PTC099629

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INDIA EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904UP2016PTC084320

Company & Directors' Information:- O S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035501

Company & Directors' Information:- G D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2003PTC122716

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904DL2012PTC245724

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2010PTC040713

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GEORGE AND CO INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999KL1946PTC001390

Company & Directors' Information:- P H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80211DL2008PTC177735

Company & Directors' Information:- O E S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2006PTC154572

    W.A. (MD) No. 536 of 2020 & C.M.P. (MD) No. 3716 of 2020

    Decided On, 13 August 2020

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAJAMANICKAM

    For the Appellants: S. Srimathy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M/s. T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 07.02.2019 passed in W.P. (MD) No.5349 of 2012.)

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The Official respondents are the appellants.

2. The respondents/writ petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.5349 of 2012, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 20.12.2011 on the file of the second appellant/second respondent and quash the same with a direction directing the appellants 1 to 3 / respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 30.11.1964, being her date of entry into service and other consequential benefits.

3. It is the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that she had passed VII standard and got appointment as a Part-Time Vocational Instructor in the Panchayat Union Middle School of Sukkiravarapatti, within Sivakasi Panchayat Union, Virduhunagar District with effect from 30.11.1964 and thereafter, in the same capacity in the Middle School of Aanaikottaam Panchayat with effect from 24.04.1968. It is also the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that though she was working as Part-Time Vocational Instructor (Single and Double) in the Middle Schools administered and maintained by Panchayat Union Schools, the work done extracted from her there of full time in nature and the said post is also called as “Vocational Instructor”. It is the stand of the first respondent/writ petitioner that the post of Part-Time Vocational Instructor is nothing but a regular post for the reason that Full Time work has been extracted.

4. The petitioner would further aver that she has also cleared ESLC Examination conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and also passed lower examination in Embroidery in the examination held in the month of November 1985 and the Needle Work and Dress making examination conducted by the Department of Government Examinations (Education) during the month of November 1986 and she has also completed Pre-foundation Course (Non-Semester), by joining the Open University System conducted by Maduai Kamarajar University.

5. The petitioner would further state that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.931, Labour and Employment Department, dated 31.07.1990, in and by which, permission has been accorded to accept the Technical Teachers Certificate issued by the Department of Employment and Training and be treated as equivalent to that of the technical Teachers Certificate issued by the Director of Government Examinations, for the purpose of appointment as Teachers in the Department of School Education. The Education, Science and Technology Department has also passed G.O.Ms.No.224, dated 24.03.1994, in and by which, a decision has been taken to accept the proposal of the third appellant and accordingly, directed that the Part-Time Pre-Vocation Instructors (Craft Teachers), who are qualified to hold the posts of Full Time Pre- Vocational Instructors (Craft Teachers) be given three months training Course in the District Institutes of Education and Training of Various Districts and absorbed in the Secondary Grade Posts on time scale of pay against existing vacancies on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rule of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The petitioner, accordingly, underwent a training at Lady Wellington Girls Higher Secondary School, Chennai, between 01.05.1990 to 07.08.1990 and got her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 10.01.1997 in the very same School, but treating her as Full Time Teacher and she would also claim that she had a continuous service of 39 years and 6 months between 30.11.1964 and 31.05.2004 without any break and her service is also exemplary. The petitioner had retired on attainment of age of superannuation by 31.05.2004 and it is also her grievance that till the date of filing the writ petition, pension and all other terminal benefits have not been settled and a representation submitted in this regard, was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2011, and making a challenge to the same, she has filed the writ petition.

6. The writ petition was entertained in the year 2012 and it appears that no counter affidavit has been filed. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal on 07.02.2019 and the learned Single Judge, having taken note of the fact that Government took a policy decision to take into account only 50% of such service, moulded the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition with a direction, directing the fourth appellant to take into account 50% of the petitioner's service put in as part time Vocational Instructor in the light of G.O.Ms.NO.194, School Education Department, dated 12.09.2018 and pass orders within the stipulated time and thus, partly allowed the writ petition, vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 and making a challenge to the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/Official respondents would submit that since it is a case of a Part Time Employment and that the petitioner was engaged Non- Provincial service on a consolidated pay, she is not entitled for pension or other benefits and the said aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.

9. A Division Bench of this Court has passed a common order dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.Nos.882 of 2016, etc.., batch and issued orders for consideration in those matters which relate to counting 50% of the services rendered by the respondents/writ petitioners either as Single Part-Time or Double Part-Time Vocational Instructor for the purpose of computing pension and other retiral benefits. The Division Bench taken into consideration the earlier decision had disposed of the writ appeals as under and it is relevant to extract paragraph No.15 of the said order.

'15.In terms of the above discussions, we dispose of the writ appeals as under:

(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.'

10. In paragraph 15(ii), the Division Bench has fixed the cut-off date as the date of delivery of the order as on 06.04.2018.

11. It is to be noted, at this juncture, that the appellants/Official respondents did not file any counter affidavit refuting the averments made in the writ petition, and as such, they did not dispute the factual aspects projected by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

12. The affidavit filed in the writ petition came to be sworn on 07.05.2012 i.e., well before the cut-off date of 06.04.2018 prescribed in the above cited common judgment in W.A.Nos.882 of 2016 etc., batch Learned Judge has also taken note of the policy decision in this regard and moulded the relief and thereby partly allowed the writ petition.

13. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials and after carefully

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned in the impugned order for partly allowing the writ petition and finds no merit in this writ appeal. 14. It is also to be noted, at this juncture, that no further challenge has been made to the above cited common order dated 06.04.2018 made in.W.A.Nos.882 of 2016 etc., batch and in the light of the same, the appellants are advised to implement the said decision uniformly to the eligible Single Part-Time or Double Part-Time Vocational Instructors and not to drive them to this Court by way of individual case. 15. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R