ORDER :

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take into account of the petitioner's out of employment period from 27.08.1992 to 08.12.1998 as service period and pay the revised pension and other monetary benefits within a time frame.

2. The petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher at AVS Primary School at Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District from 16.07.1976 and retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2009.

3. During the service period, there has been a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, result of which, he was placed under suspension with effect from 27.08.1992 and in this regard, when a writ petition was filed before this Court by the petitioner in W.P.No.20013 of 1992 and W.P.No.7412 of 1997, between the petitioner and the School Management, of course in the presence of the official respondents i.e., Education Department, it seems that, there had been a compromise entered into, which had been reduced in writing and had been filed before this Court in the said writ proceedings. Having accepted the said compromise entered into between the parties, this Court, in a batch of cases including the aforesaid two writ petitions, passed an order on 08.04.1999, where, having recorded the compromise reached between the parties, the Writ Court had directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders accordingly.

4.Though such a development had been taken place, subsequently no orders have been passed, whereby the suspension period of the petitioner between 27.08.1992 and 08.12.1998, which was directed to be treated as a duty period for all other purposes except backwages, had not been considered and no orders have been passed.

5. Therefore, only in that circumstances, the petitioner in order to get such orders from the Educational Authorities i.e., the respondents herein has given a detailed representation on 24.08.2011. However, the said representation since has not been considered and decided, he had approached this Court and filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

6. Heard Mr.G.Tamilzharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who made submissions reiterating the aforesaid facts, seeks indulgence of this Court to give a suitable direction.

7. Heard Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents who relied upon the following passage in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

"Therefore the period of break in service from 27.08.1992 to 08.12.1998 could not be treated as duty without paying salaries for these period from the funds of the management. Therefore the period of break in service from 27.08.1992 to 08.12.1998 cannot be counted for sanction of annual in comments and for calculation as eligible service for pensioner / benefits. The Joint memo of compromise is in consistent with Rules. Hence the period from 27.08.1992 to 08.12.1998 is really break in service and not duty period as wrongly described to suit the requirement of this petitioner. Hence no order was required to be passed by the educational authorities on the joint memo of compromise. Therefore the representation dated 13.05.2011 of this petitioner addressed to the first respondent and then retransmitted to the third respondent by proceedings dated 3.10.2011 of the first respondent could not be considered as it is against rules."

8. By relying upon the aforesaid averments, the learned Government Advocate would further submit that, in view of the said reason even though the suspended period was treated as a duty period for all other purpose, no financial commitment could be made, therefore, annual increment cannot be expected to the petitioner, he contended.

9. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

10. In fact, initially the School authorities, where the petitioner had worked, by order dated 27.08.1992, terminated the service of the peti