Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
Chief Educational Officer – Appellant
Versus
Shahul Hameed – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2026 | C.M.P(MD)No.6097 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.Ashok
For the Respondents: S.Chellapandian, S.Mahalakshmi
Past service rendered by a teacher, even if approved belatedly following mandatory training completion, must be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the counting of prior service for pensionary benefits of a teacher initially appointed due to a lack of eligible candidates. The relevant government order required specific training for graduate teachers appointed to secondary grade posts, which the teacher subsequently completed to secure approval of service. The single judge allowed the petition relying on established division bench precedents regarding pensionable service. The core issue is whether the period of service rendered prior to the formal qualification/approval can be included in the calculation of pensionary benefits. The court reaffirmed the ratio decided in established precedents (Pallivasal Primary School case) that such service, despite earlier approval delays, must be computed for retirement benefits. In consequence, the court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the judgment of the learned single judge.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ appeal and the background regarding the teacher's service and pension claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial reliance on precedents to mandate the inclusion of past service for pension calculations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated
14.10.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.25557 of 2025, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
2.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants; the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The Writ Petition has been filed by the first respondent stating that the petitioner was a Secondary Grade Teacher Teacher with qualification of B.Sc, B.Ed. At that time, the qualification for Secondary Grade Teacher is passing of Diploma in Teacher Education. Since no eligible candidates were available to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent school on 01.08.1995. Belatedly, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.155, Education Department, dated 03.10.2002, the Graduate Teacher appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher should possess one month Child Pshychology course and after such training only, the appointment would be approved. Accordingly, he has undergone such training and his appointment was approved on 31.05.2003. Therefore, he sought a direction to count his past service for the pensionary benefits.
4.The learned Single Judge ordered the writ petition, taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench in this regard, namely, State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary and others vs, Pallivasal Primary School, rep.
by its Correspondent reported in 2002 (2) LW 591
5.It is relevant to note that the said judgment has reached finality and in the said judgment, the issue was clearly held that the past service shall be calculated for the pension. Later, another Division Bench, in W.A.(MD) No.1464 of 2021, vide order dated 28.07.2021 in the case of District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and others vs, M.S.Shanthi and others has also followed the Pallivasal Primary School’s case.
6. In such view of the matter, as the past service is ordered to be counted for pension, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
