Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner’s appointment as a Lecturer in the 4th respondent Aided Institution, with effect from 16.12.1981, was approved from the said dated 7.8.1982 of the third respondent, while, the 5th respondent college was admitted to grant-in-aid by order dated 11.2.1987, of the 2nd respondent with effect from 16.7.1986. the petitioner having rendered total service of 26 years 15 days, retired on 31.12.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5, it is alleged, reckoned 21 years 5 month 16 days as total service rendered by the petitioner, denying 4 years and 5 months of service when the 4th respondent institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid, to determine the quantum of pensionary benefits which the petitioner was entitled, on retirement, by order dated 22.3.2008, Annexure-‘L’. Hence Petition for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.2.2008 vide Annexure-‘L’, bearing No. PV 4/7-08/P04-38775/R3/1643 passed by the respondent No. 5 insofar as excluding the period of service rendered from 16.12.1981 to 16.7.1986 from treating it as qualifying service for the purpose of fixing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay to the petitioner pension calculated on the basis of qualifying service counted from his initial appointment i.e., 16-12-1981 on the basis of actual emoluments drawn by him including increments and promotion for non-grant period and permit him to commute 1/3 of the pension and grant consequential benefits including payment of arrears of pension, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of respective amounts became due until date of payment,

c) Issue any other such benefits as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the qualifying service to determine pensionary benefits includes the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 16.12.1981 to 16.07.1986, when the institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid. Learned Council places reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of V.T.S Jeyabal and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Annexure- ‘M’ in W.P. No. 19431/2005 and connected petitions, dated 13.10.2006, answering in the affirmative, the question as to whether the employees of aided institutions were entitled to pensionary benefits by reckoning the total period of service to include the period when the institution was admitted to aid. Learned Counsel points out the order dated 3.11.2009 in W.A No. 450/2007 filed by the State, whence the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned Counsel for the State and its authorities – respondents does not dispute the said legal position, but, contends that there is a delay of 1 year 6 months in preferring the Writ Petition calling in question the order impugned.

4. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and examined the order impugned, the decision in V.T.S. Jeyabal’s case applies on all its fours entitling the petitioner to reckoning of total period of service as including the period when the institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid.

5. The observations of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. N. Parameshwarappa and Others, 2003 (1) SLR 251, in the circumstance is apposite

“8. xxx At the same time, we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teacher who approached the Court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, everyone of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court. xxx”

6. The delay of 1 ½ years in filing the Writ Petition cannot disentitle the petitioner to a det