V. RAMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to take 50% of their part time service rendered as vocational teacher along with their regular service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. The facts and the issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same except the relevant date of appointment and the period of their past service. Therefore, the facts projected in the first writ petition viz., W.P. (MD) No. 16771 of 2013 are narrated hereunder which warranted the petitioners to approach this Court seeking for the relief as stated supra.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a single part time vocational teacher on 8.10.1980 and he was regularised on 1.4.1990 in such capacity. Thereafter, he was promoted as P.G. Assistant (Commerce) and retired from service on 30.3.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Government as well as private schools were engaging number of qualified persons as teachers for the vocational subjects either as Double part time or Single part time teachers according to their needs. All of them were employed indefinitely for years together. After repeated representations and agitations, the Government, in order to bring them under time scale of pay in a phased manner, directed to fill up 800 posts for the vocational instructors in G.O.Ms. No. 712 Education Department dated 28.5.1990 by appointing them as Double part time teachers. Further, G.O. No. 68 dated 20.3.2007 was passed stating that the Vocational Teachers can be appointed on par with B.T. Assistants. After the retirement of the petitioner, the service rendered by him as part time vocational Teacher from 8.10.1980 to 31.3.1990 was not taken into account while calculating the pension. Under similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No. 39177 of 2002 dated 16.4.2009 directed the respondents to count 50% of the part time service rendered by the petitioner therein for the purpose of calculating the pension. A writ appeal filed challenging the said order, in W.A. No. 1702 of 2010 was dismissed on 20.9.2010. Further appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief.

(3.) THE second respondent filed a separate counter affidavit wherein the averments are made in similar line to the one filed by the educational authorities.