BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD)Nos.26092, 26970, 28684, 28724, 29145, 29274, 29787 and 30670 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.26092 of 2025:

J.Beula Mercy ...Petitioner Vs

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2.The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI, Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), O/o.The Joint Director of School Education, Dpi Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

4.The Principal Accountant General (A& E), O/o.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.

5.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District.

6.The Correspondent, Capron Hall Girls Higher Secondary School, Madurai-625016. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include the 50% of the service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Part Time Vocational Instructor (Computer Science) Consolidated pay from 29.06.1995 to 05.11.1996 along with regular service for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for pension and disburse the monetary benefits along with arrears and other consequential benefits to the petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 03.09.2025 within the time period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/s.Anusha For R1, R2, R3 and R5 : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

COMMON ORDER

The issue that has arisen in these writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to have 50% of the service rendered by them as Part-Time Vocational Instructors counted for the purpose of computing pension and other retirement benefits.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed as Part-Time Instructors and that their services also been regularized. According to the petitioners, the issue is no longer res integra. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No. 882 of 2017 and etc., batch by order dated 06.04.2018 had held that 50% of the service rendered as Part -Time Vocational Instructors should be counted for the purpose of computing the pension and other retirement benefits. However, the Division Bench extended the benefits only to those persons who had approached this Court, thereby denying the said benefit to other persons who had not approached this Court.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.2133 of 2019 etc batch had held that restricting the benefit only to those petitioners who had approached this Court prior to 06.04.2018 and denying the same to the appellants/petitioners therein, who are similarly placed, is unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, individuals who had not approached this Court prior to 06.04.2018 were also held entitled to the benefit of counting 50% of their service rendered as Part-Time Vocational Instructors.

Therefore, it is a claim that the petitioners who are also similarly placed are entitled to count of 50% of the part time service to be taken for computation of their pensionary benefits.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 relying upon the judgment of this Court made in W.A(MD).No1069 of 2019 dated 08.06.2023 would vehemently contend that the petitioners herein cannot be granted with a relief, as their Writ Petitions are hit by delay and latches. He would submit that the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, in the said case, had rejected the claim of the appellant therein for retrospective absorption as full time craft teacher from the date of their initial appointment, solely on the ground that the appellant therein had knocked the doors of this Court, at