IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of timely redressal of grievances and the plain and unambiguous interpretation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the learned Judge dated 23.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.28362 of 2015.)

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of dismissal dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.28362 of 2015.

2. According to the appellant, she joined in the Government Service as B.T. Assistant (Zoology) in the year 1989 and was posted at St. Ebba's Girls Hr. Sec. School, Mylapore, Chennai; she continued in service till 20.07.2007; and thus, rendered service for a period of 17 years, 2 months, and 13 days. Due to illhealth, she submitted her resignation, which was duly accepted by the department on 14.08.2007. It is further stated that all the eligible benefits including increment, were received, but pensionary benefits have remained unpaid. In this regard, she made representations to the respondents, which were not considered. Hence, the appellant filed W.P.No.29296 of 2014, which was disposed of, by the learned Judge, vide order dated 06.01.2015 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant for grant of pension. Pursuant to the said order, the third respondent rejected the representation of the appellant by order dated 17.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.28362 of 2015 to quash the said order and direct the fourth respondent to sanction pension and other retiral benefits to the appellant with interest at 18% in the light of the Division Bench decision dated 17.11.2008 in WP No. 13048 of 2006.

3. By order dated 23.08.2022 which is impugned herein, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, on the premise that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria as per Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, since she is resigned her service. The relevant portion of the said order is profitably extracted below:

"4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a resigned employee and her resignation was accepted by the competent authority and she was relieved from service on 20.07.2007. She had received the eligible benefits during the relevant point of time and this Writ Petition has been filed after a lapse of 8 years from the date acceptance of her resignation.

5. In order to restore the lapsed claim, the petitioner filed the earlier Writ Petition and obtained an order of direction to consider her representation. The earlier Writ Petition itself was filed in the year 2014. There was a delay of 7 years in pursuing the remedy after the acceptance of resignation by the competent authority.

6. The practice of restoring the lapsed cause of action by sending a representation and filing a Writ Petition for a direction to consider the representation cannot be encouraged by the High Court and the grievances are to be redressed within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner resigned her post which was accepted by the authorities in the year 2007. Thus, if any grievance exists, she should have approached the authorities within a reasonable period of time. Contrarily, she waited for about 7 years and thereafter submitted a representation and filed a Writ Petition with an idea to restore the lapsed claim and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Director of School Education passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2015, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

7. Beyond the lapses, even on merits, the petitioner is not eligible for pensionary benefits, as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, since she is a resigned employee. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the reasons stated in the order impugned.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

Assailing the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, the appellant / writ petitioner has come up with this writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the d