Past service of unqualified Secondary Grade Teachers prior to Child Psychology Training counts for pension per Division Bench ruling.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR I.Saral ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Account General, Office of Accountant General

361, Annasalai, Chennai.

2.The Chief Educational Officer Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

3.The District Educational Officer Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

4.The Secretary Rukmani High School Mangalapuram Kadayanallur, Tenkasi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling for the records in relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated: 24.03.2025 in so far as calculating the pension for 24 years 1 month 0 days of service as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revise the pension pay by taking the qualifying service as 32 years 0 months 0 days instead of 24 years 1 months 0 days and disburse arrears and all other monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi – for R1 Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar – for R2 & R3 Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in No.E22/12231177/1/R2231177 dated 24.03.2025 in so far as calculating the pension only for 24 years 1 month 0 days of service as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pension pay by taking the qualifying service as 32 years 0 months 0 days instead of 24 years 1 months 0 days and disburse arrears and all other monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 03.06.1996 and her appointment was also approved rd through proceedings dated 31.07.1996 issued by the 3 respondent and finally, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2024 as Middle School headmistress. While so, there was a dispute with regard to the validity of the appointment order of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher for want of possessing the necessary qualifications and the said issue being the subject matter of litigation before this Court. Ultimately resulting in Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.155 dated 03.10.2002, whereby permitting all the Secondary Grade Teachers who are appointed without requisite qualification to continue in service subject to completing Child Psychology Training course and to regularize their services from the date on which they completed the said course.

3. The said Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.155, dated

03.10.2002 is again subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.A. (MD)Nos.249 of 2002 and batch and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2004, upheld the said Government Order. However, observed that the past service rendered by the Secondary Grade Teachers, i.e., prior to completing the training in Child Psychology shall be counted for pension.

4. In the light of the said observation made by the Division Bench, the petitioner herein claims that the service rendered by the petitioner herein from 03.06.1996 till 31.05.2003, i.e., till the date on which petitioner completed the training in Child Psychology course, is also required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but the impugned order came to be issued by the respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the said service rendered by the petitioner prior to completing Child Psychology Training course.

5. The respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is not entitled for counting the said service in terms of G.O.(