The court emphasized that the entitlement to pro rata pension should be considered based on the law laid down by the court and relevant Government Orders.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 to grant pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 29.08.1966 to 09.02.1981 in the sixth respondent School on the basis of the representation dated 01.02.2011 and pass orders.

2. The short facts pertaining to the present writ petition is that the petitioner had worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher in an Aided Primary School in Keezhvelur Range, Nagapattinam District, from 29.08.1966. After serving fourteen years, even though, her appointment was approved by the concerned Department, due to her family circumstances, she was constrained to resign her job on 09.02.1981. Her resignation and also the claim for pension was sent for approval to the fifth respondent on 14.08.1990.

3. The said proposal was returned by the fifth respondent stating that even though the petitioner has service till 04.07.2005, since she has resigned earlier, she would not be entitled or eligible to get pension. The said action on the part of the fifth respondent in returning the proposal of the sixth respondent claiming pension to the petitioner, according to the petitioner, may not be justifiable, in view of the series of Government Orders as well as the relevant pension rules.

4. Explaining the said position as to how the petitioner is entitled to get pension based on the relevant Government Orders, she had given a detailed representation on 01.02.2011 to the first respondent. Though such representation was given by the petitioner, the same has not so far been considered and no orders have been passed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would rely upon two Government Orders, namely, G.O.Ms. No. 1015, Education Department, dated 05.06.1981, as well as the G.O.Ms. No. 37, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 05.01.1983.

5.1. According to the learned counsel, the teaching staff of the aided school/non governmental school though had not been covered under any particular pension scheme, however, had been granted pension continuously from the year 1955 onwards by issuance of various executive orders.

5.2. In this regard, learned counsel would heavily rely upon G.O.Ms. No. 1015, dated 05.06.1981, wherein, a number of such Government Orders have been mentioned from 1958 to 1978.

5.3. Learned counsel would also submit that subsequently G.O.Ms. No. 37, dated 05.01.1983, was also issued clarifying the position, whereby, those who resigned before the crucial date of the Government Order concerned, shall be entitled to get, at least, pro rata pension for the period worked.

5.4. In this regard, learned counsel would submit that as the petitioner resigned her job on 09.02.1981 and the G.O.Ms. No. 1015 was issued on 05.06.1981, the petitioner would be entitled to get pro rata pension, even though, she resigned her job, as her resignation was taken place prior to the crucial date, i.e. date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 1015 on 05.06.1981.

5.5. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 Writ L.R. 852, in the matter of Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Education vs. S.V. Paul Jeyaraj. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment, which read thus:

"6. There is no doubt that under Rule 12, there is no entitlement of pensionary benefits to a teacher who has actually resigned from the service. However, our attention is invited to the copy of G.O.Ms. No. 37, dated 5.1.1983, and more particularly to paragraphs 6 and 7 therein, which are self-explanatory and hence are being quoted by us. They are as follows:

"6. As regards "those who retired before the crucial