Allowed

P.Elango, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Nov 2025WP/32795/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order allows a writ petition disputing the calculation of pensionable service. The Court held that 50% of the petitioner's part-time service prior to regularization must be considered for pension benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, aligning with a recent Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

50% of past part-time service to be counted for pension; sanction pension, benefits, and pay arrears within 12 weeks.

P.Elango, Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 32795 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 32795 of 2018

P.Elango

Petitioner(s)

The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.`

¶11

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Dhaarmapuri, Dharmapuri District Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to take 50 percent of service rendered by the petitioner as part time vocational instructors drawing consolidated pay between 1/6/1984 to 31/3/1990 along with regular service from 1/4/1990 for calculating the qualifying service, for the purpose of pension and the quantum of pension under Rule 43 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits and also to pay arrears by considering petitioners representation dated 2/10/2018, within the time limit.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): M/s.L.Chandrakumar

¶16

For Respondent(s): M/s.P.Raja Rajeshwari GA

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No. 32795 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to

¶21

count 50% of service rendered by the petitioner as a part-time Vocational Instructors, drawing consolidated pay, between 1/6/1984 to 31/3/1990, along with regular service from 1/4/1990 for calculating the qualifying service, for the purpose of pension and the quantum of pension under Rule 43 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits and also to pay arrears, by considering petitioner’s representation dated 2/10/2018, within a stipulated time.

¶22

The petitioner (P.Elango) joined in service as a part-time Vocational Teacher in T.S.S.Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Papparapatti, Dharmapuri District, on 1/6/1984 and his service was regularized on 1/4/1990 from part-time Vocational Teacher to full-time scale of pay. The petitioner retired on 31/5/2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. The plea of the petitioner is that 50% of the past service, which he served initially as parttime Vocational Teacher from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization, be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

¶23

The facts are not in dispute.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP No. 32795 of 2018

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in similar cases, the benefit of 50% of past service as part-time employees was considered. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in Selvaraj Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others , in W.A.Nos.2907 and 2019 and etc., batch dated 29.08.2023 and also in The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. N.Krishnamoorthi and others in W.A(MD).No.1119 of 2024 dated 09.07.2024.

¶27

In the judgment of the Selvaraj’s case cited supra, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that 50% of the service rendered by the petitioners therein, from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization as part-time Vocational Instructors, has to be calculated and accordingly, pension has to be paid. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also suggested that appropriate Government orders shall be passed in such cases, since there are several Vocational Instructors, who have joined service and 50% of their services during their part time services were not considered.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Govt of Tamil Nadu Vs. The Chief Educational Officer , made in W.A.Nos.882 of 2016 and etc batch, dated 06.04.2018, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP No. 32795 of 2018

¶31

fixed a time limit and held that the said benefit cannot be extended to similarly placed persons in future cases.

¶32

Though the order dated 06.04.2018 mentions not extending benefit to similarly placed persons, however, subsequently, the Division Bench of this

¶33

Court in Selvaraj’s case cited supra have not only extended benefits but also recommended to Government to pass GO to extend the benefits by considering 50% of their service as part-time Vocational Instructor.

¶34

Following the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court Selvaraj’s case cited supra, this Writ Petition is allowed. 50% of the past service of the petitioner as part-time vocational Teacher shall be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the qualifying service, for the purpose of pension

¶35

and other consequential pensionary benefits and also to pay arrears by considering petitioner’s representation dated 02.10.2018, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶36

K.SURENDER, J. 18-11-2025 (11/11)

¶37

Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes: Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP No. 32795 of 2018

¶40

¶41