Service in an unsanctioned post can be considered for calculating pensionable service if approved by the government and based on previous judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to regularize the petitioner-s service as B.T. Assistant in the fourth respondent school, for the period 03.06.1987 to 23.11.1995 by continuing the sanction accorded in G.O. Ms No.481, Education (D1) / Department dated 04.04.1990 read with G.O. Ms No.525 Education Department, dated 22.11.1997 in terms with the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court Division Bench by its judgment reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 289 and to pay all service benefits, emoluments, arrears of salary and revised pension within such time as fixed by this Court.)

The petitioner herein claims for inclusion of his past services in an unaided post as pensionable service, for the calculation of his monthly pension.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 03.06.1987 in an unaided post in the fourth respondent institution. When the fourth respondent had sought for sanction of teaching post in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.250, School Education Department, dated 29.02.1964, the Government had issued G.O. (Ms) No.481, School Education Department, dated 04.04.1990, sanctioning teaching and non teaching posts to the fourth respondent school. Accordingly, the petitioner-s appointment was approved in one of the sanctioned post and was paid the salary as B.T. Assistant from the date of his appointment i.e., 03.06.1987 to 01.11.1987.

4. The Hon-ble Division Bench of this Court, had passed orders in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.12364/1984, dated 10.09.1990, directing the Authorities to consider the request of the Minority Schools for Grant-in-Aid. Accordingly, the Government had extended the staff salary grant for Private Schools through G.O. (Ms) No.340, Education (D1) Department, dated 01.04.1992 and through G.O. (Ms) No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, the teacher and pupil ratio was fixed, by over riding G.O. (Ms) No.340, School Education (D1) Department, dated 01.04.1992 with effect from 01.06.1998.

5. In the year 1999, the Tamil Nadu recognised Private Schools Regulation Act was amended by insertion of Section 14(1)(a) granting power to the Government to continue payment of aid to the private schools, which were receiving grant before the Academic Year 1991-92. Likewise, Section 14(A) was also inserted, to the effect that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any Law for the time being in force in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or any other authority, no grant shall be paid to new Private Schools and course of instruction opened after 1991-92 and to which no grant has been paid by the Government.

6. The petitioner had thereafter resigned from the services of the fourth respondent school on 23.11.1995 and joined the Government Educational Service in the Government Higher Secondary School, Chettikulam on 24.11.1995. The petitioner had retired from the service on 27.11.2006 and now seeks for counting of his service as B.T. Assistant in the fourth respondent school for revision of his pensionary benefits.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition has already come up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai & 3 Others passed in W.P.15007 of 2010 dated 29.04.2022 whereby, the past services in the unaided post was taken as pensionable service and the pensionary benefits were revised. The learned counsel submitted that though he has sought for a larger relief for all the service and monetary benefits, he would submit that he would be satisfied if a similar order is passed in the present Writ Petition.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not a sanctioned post and therefore