Allowed¶63

Saral I v. The Accountant General

Pension – qualifying service

Madras HC26 Mar 2026WP(MD)/5818/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

pension; qualifying service; past service; Secondary Grade Teacher; Child Psychology Training course; G.O.(Ms)No.155 dated 03.10.2002; Accountant General; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; superannuation; Tenkasi; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.A.(MD) Nos.249 of 2002 and batch; W.P.(MD)No.4968 of 2024; W.A.(MD) No.248 of 2026; writ petition allowed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to review the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003 only for the purpose of pension and to issue the revised order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶63

Saral I Vs The Accountant General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the service rendered by the petitioner from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003, i.e., prior to completion of the Child Psychology Training course, is required to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.249 of 2002 and batch dated 02.04.2004 has attained finality and, following it, various Co-ordinate Benches have been extending the benefit of counting past service rendered prior to completing the Child Psychology Training Course for the purpose of pensionary benefits alone.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

This Court sees no reason to deviate from the consistent view taken by various Co-ordinate Benches as well as the Division Bench of this Court, the issue having been decided long back and the judgment operating for all these years.

¶56

Key takeaways

There is absolutely no necessity for the 1st respondent to seek any clarification, as the issue has already attained finality as early as in the year 2004.ratio¶62
The writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to review the impugned order duly taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003 only for the purpose of pension and to issue the revised order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pension - qualifying service - Secondary Grade Teacher (petitioner) appointed on 03.06.1996 without requisite qualifications, appointment approved 31.07.1996; retired on superannuation on 30.09.2024 as Middle School headmistress. G.O.(Ms)No.155 dated 03.10.2002 permitted Secondary Grade Teachers appointed without requisite qualification to continue in service subject to completing the Child Psychology Training course, with regularisation from course completion; the G.O. was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos.249 of 2002 and batch by order dated 02.04.2004, with the observation that past service rendered prior to completing the training shall be counted for pension. The 1st respondent (Accountant General), by order No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated 24.03.2025, computed pension on qualifying service of 24 years 1 month 0 days, excluding the service from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003. Co-ordinate Benches have consistently extended the benefit of counting past service for pension (e.g., W.P.(MD)No.4968 of 2024, dated 13.11.2024, confirmed in the State's appeal in W.A.(MD) No.248 of 2026); the 1st respondent's letter dated 09.02.2026 seeking clarification was held unnecessary, the issue having attained finality in 2004. Held: the service from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003 is to be counted for the purpose of pension only; respondents to review the impugned order and issue the revised order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months. Writ petition allowed; no costs (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.).

¶1

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 26.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

I.Saral

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Account General,

¶11

Office of Accountant General

¶12

361, Annasalai, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Chief Educational Officer

¶14

Tenkasi,

¶15

Tenkasi District.

¶16

3.The District Educational Officer

Tenkasi,

Tenkasi District.

1/9

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

¶21

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶22

4.The Secretary

¶23

Rukmani High School Mangalapuram Kadayanallur, Tenkasi ... Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling for the records in relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated: 24.03.2025 in so far as calculating the pension for 24 years 1 month 0 days of service as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revise the pension pay by taking the qualifying service as 32 years 0 months 0 days instead of 24 years 1 months 0 days and disburse arrears and all other monetary benefits.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi – for R1 Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar – for R2 & R3 Additional Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned

¶28

2/9

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶31

order of the 1 st respondent in No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated 24.03.2025 in so far as calculating the pension only for 24 years 1 month 0 days of service as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pension pay by taking the qualifying service as 32 years 0 months 0 days instead of 24 years 1 months 0 days and disburse arrears and all other monetary benefits.

¶32

The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.06.1996 and her appointment was also approved through proceedings dated 31.07.1996 issued by the 3^rd respondent and finally, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2024 as Middle School headmistress. While so, there was a dispute with regard to the validity of the appointment order of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for want of possessing the necessary qualifications and the said issue being the subject matter of litigation before this Court. Ultimately resulting in Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.155 dated 03.10.2002, whereby permitting all the Secondary Grade Teachers who are appointed without

¶33

3/9

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶36

requisite qualification to continue in service subject to completing Child Psychology Training course and to regularize their services from the date on which they completed the said course.

¶37

The said Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.155, dated 03.10.2002 is again subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.A. (MD)Nos.249 of 2002 and batch and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2004, upheld the said Government Order. However, observed that the past service rendered by the Secondary Grade Teachers, i.e., prior to completing the training in Child Psychology shall be counted for pension.

¶38

In the light of the said observation made by the Division

¶39

Bench, the petitioner herein claims that the service rendered by the petitioner herein from 03.06.1996 till 31.05.2003, i.e., till the date on which petitioner completed the training in Child Psychology course, is also required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but the impugned order came to be issued by the respondent No.1 without

¶40

4/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶43

taking into consideration the said service rendered by the petitioner prior

¶44

to completing Child Psychology Training course.

¶45

The respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit contending

¶46

that the petitioner is not entitled for counting the said service in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.155 dated 03.10.2002.

¶47

This Court has carefully considered the contentions raised

¶48

by Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 & 3 and Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶49

From the perusal of the material on record, it is evident

¶50

that the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.249 of 2002 and batch dated 02.04.2004 has attained finality and following the said order, various Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have been extending the benefit of counting the past service, i.e., the service

¶51

5/9

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶54

rendered prior to completing the Child Psychology Training Course for the purpose of pensionary benefits alone.

¶55

In one such order in W.P.(MD)No.4968 of 2024 dated 13.11.2024 and the said order is also appealed against by the State and the same as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.248 of 2026 and the petitioner in the said petition was also extended the benefit of counting the past service for the purpose of pension.

¶56

As the issue has been already decided long back by the Division Bench of this Court and the said judgement has been operating for all these years, this Court does not see any reason to deviate from the consistent view taken by various Co-ordinate Benches as well as Division Bench of this Court.

¶57

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the Office of the 1^st respondent has already addressed a letter dated 09.02.2026 requesting for clarification on this aspect as to

¶58

6/9

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶61

whether the past service rendered by the Secondary Grade Teachers can be treated as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension or not and the said clarification is awaited. In the considered view of this Court

¶62

absolutely there is no necessity for the 1^st respondent to seek any such clarification as the issue has already attained finality as early as in the year 2004.

¶63

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to review the impugned order duly taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003 only for the purpose of pension and issue the revised order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶64

26.03.2026

¶65

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶66

¶67

7/9

¶68

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

¶69

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶70

¶71

1.The Account Manager Office of Accountant General 361, Annasalai, Chennai.

¶72

2.The Chief Educational Officer Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶73

3.The District Educational Officer Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶74

4.The Secretary Rukmani High School Mangalapuram Kadayanallur, Tenkasi.

¶75

8/9

¶76

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

¶77

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026

¶78

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶79

¶80

W.P(MD) No.5818 of 2026 (1/2)

¶81

26.03.2026

¶82

9/9

¶83

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated 24.03.2025 of the 1st respondent calculating the petitioner's pension on qualifying service of 24 years 1 month 0 days instead of 32 years 0 months 0 days.¶24
The Account General (1st respondent) · 24.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.06.1996; appointment approved by the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 31.07.1996.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2024 as Middle School headmistress.¶32
Prior proceeding
Litigation over the validity of the petitioner's appointment for want of requisite qualifications culminated in Government Order G.O.(Ms)No.155 dated 03.10.2002.¶32
Prior proceeding
G.O.(Ms)No.155 permitted Secondary Grade Teachers appointed without requisite qualification to continue in service subject to completing the Child Psychology Training course and to regularise their services from the date of course completion.¶36
Prior proceeding
G.O.(Ms)No.155 was challenged in W.A.(MD)Nos.249 of 2002 and batch; the Division Bench by order dated 02.04.2004 upheld the Government Order and observed that past service rendered prior to completing Child Psychology training shall be counted for pension.¶37
Prior proceeding
Petitioner claimed that her service from 03.06.1996 to 31.05.2003, i.e., until completion of the Child Psychology training, must be counted for pensionary benefits; the impugned order was issued without considering that service.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is not entitled to count the said service in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.155 dated 03.10.2002.¶46
Prior proceeding
Following the 2004 Division Bench order, Co-ordinate Benches extended the benefit of counting past service for pension; in W.P.(MD)No.4968 of 2024 (dated 13.11.2024) the benefit was extended, the State's appeal was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.248 of 2026, and the petitioner there was granted the benefit.¶55
Prior proceeding
The Office of the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 09.02.2026 requesting clarification on whether past service of Secondary Grade Teachers can be treated as qualifying service for pension.¶57

Saral I v. The Accountant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saral I v. The Accountant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Stalin Vs The Director of School Education

Balakrishnan.S Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Anbuchelvan Vs The Managing Director

C.Ravichandran Vs The Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

R.Narasingam Vs The Management of

P.Babu Vs The Managing Director