JUDGMENT :

K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 19.11.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 901 of 2015.

1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the Writ Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. In the said writ petition, the order of the seventh respondent, dated 30.05.2014 and that of the fifth respondent, dated 15.07.2014, were put to challenge. Through the impugned orders, earlier allotment granted to the writ petitioner under Old Pension Scheme was cancelled and the writ petitioner was placed under the New Pension Scheme. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for direction to continue her under Old Pension Scheme, namely, Teacher Provident Fund.

2. The followings are the short facts and circumstances, which necessitated the filing of this writ appeal:-

The writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.07.2002. She possessed B.A. (Economics) and B.Ed. (Economics) degree. Based on G.O.Ms. No. 301, School Education (B1) Department, dated 15.10.1999, the writ petitioner was selected and appointed for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The fifth respondent through proceedings, dated 16.05.2003, recommended the writ petitioner to undergo one month Child Psychology Training. Accordingly, the writ petitioner completed such training on 27.10.2004. Thereafter, her service was regularized in the time scale of pay through proceedings, dated 20.12.2004. She was alloted Teacher Provident Found Scheme Account No. 339306 on 31.08.2005. However, after a period of nearly nine years, the impugned orders came to be passed cancelling the allotment of old scheme to the writ petitioner on the reason that she was regularised in service only on 20.12.2004, after the commencement of New Contributory Pension Scheme, which came into force on 01.04.2003.

3. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the reason that the writ petitioner has completed her Child Psychology Training only on 27.10.2004 and therefore, she is not entitled to claim under Old Pension Scheme.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that for considering the eligibility of the writ petitioner under Old Pension Scheme, the actual date of her appointment is relevant and not the actual date of regularization. She further contended that in view of the order passed in W.A. No. 249 of 2002 etc. dated 02.04.2004 reported in (2004) 2 LW 591, State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pallivasal Primary School, the writ petitioner's past service shall have to be counted, even though approval of her appointment can be made only from the date of completion of the Child Psychology Training.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the writ petitioner, admittedly, has undergone the Child Psychology Training and completed the same only on 27.10.2004 by which time, the New Pension Scheme has come into force with effect from 01.04.2003. Therefore, she contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation was rightly passed.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The point for consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to be placed under the Old Pension Scheme as claimed by her or under the New Pension Scheme, as claimed by the respondents.

8. There is no dispute to the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.07.2002. There is no dispute to the fact that immediately after appointing the writ petitioner in the said post, the school management sent a proposal to the department on the very same day to send her for Child Psychology Training. However, the said request was considered by the department only on 16.05.2003 and accordingly, the writ petitioner was allowed to undergo Child Psychology Training. Consequently, the writ petitioner completed the training on 27.10.2004. O