Court directs timely consideration of appointments to allow fairness in pension scheme benefits.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioners were appointed by the

6^th respondent-Manager as per Exts.P1 to P5 appointment orders. The appointments were made against vacancies that arose pursuant to the sanction of additional batches as per Ext.P6 order.

2. Subsequently, the Government sanctioned posts as per Ext.P7. However, the sanction was granted only with effect from 15.07.2013 instead of 03.08.2011, the date on which additional batches were sanctioned as per Ext.P6. It is submitted that additional batches could not have functioned without Teachers. Therefore, sanctioning the posts from a later date, without assigning any cogent reason, is unjust and arbitrary.

3. Later, the appointment of the 1^st petitioner was approved with effect from 21.10.2013 and 2^nd petitioner was approved with effect from 22.10.2013 and that of the others from 23.10.2013. In between the actual dates of appointment as per Exts.P1 to P5 and the dates of approval on 21.10.2013, 22.10.2013 and 23.10.2013, the Government introduced Contributory Pension Scheme as per NPS, with effect from 01.04.2013. On the ground that the petitioners’ appointments were approved after 01.04.2013, they were denied the benefit of the Statutory Pension Scheme and were brought under the NPS.

4. Consequently, pension contributions have been deducted from their salaries towards the Contributory Pension Scheme. Aggrieved by the non-approval of their appointments from the actual dates of appointment, the petitioners approached this Court and the writ petition was allowed as per Ext.P11 judgment dated 20.12.2024.

5. In Ext.P11, this Court held that the judgment dated 18.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.19141 of 2013 squarely applies to the case of the petitioners, which gives similar reliefs sought by the petitioners herein and observed that their appointments are to be approved from the respective dates of appointment. It was further directed that the petitioners approach the respondents by filing appropriate representation for the same. The petitioners herein are petitioners 30 to 34 in Ext.P11 judgment and are thus entitled to approval from their original dates of appointment.

6. In compliance with Ext.P11 judgment, the petitioners submitted Ext.P12 representation before the respondents. However, no orders have been passed thereon. Though the petitioners filed Contempt of Court Case (C) No.3118/2025 before this Court, the same was closed on the ground that the petitioners had not submitted Ext.P12 representation within the time stipulated in Ext.P11 judgment.

7. It is submitted that the judgment in W.P.(C)

No.19141/2013, relied upon in Ext.P11 judgment, was challenged by the respondents in Writ Appeal and SLP and both were dismissed. Hence, the said judgment has attained finality. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 representation in tune with the directions in Ext.P11 judgment read with P10 judgment.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5.

9. In respect of the grievance raised, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.23950 of 2016. This Court, as per judgment dated 20.12.2024, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners when the petitioners approached the respective respondents through appropriate applications. The petitioners submitted Ext.P12 joint application dated 10.12.2025. The said application has not been considered. Though the petitioners fi