WP(MD)/22185/2018 of K.JEYARAJ PAUL Vs THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT on 13 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 7th April 2017 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to count his service with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from 27th November 1995 to 16th September 2000 to arrive at his qualifying service for the purpose of calculating his pension for his service in the Educational Department.

2. Mr. S. Louis, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P Gunasekaran, learned counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. C Jeganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused materials available on record.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

(a) The writ petitioner was employed as an assessor with the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board (as it then from 26th November 1995 to 16th September 2000). During his service with the Electricity Board, the petitioner seems to have applied and participated in the selection process conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board to the post of B.T. Assistant in Mathematics and was successful. Subsequently, after leaving his service with the Electricity Board, the petitioner took up employment with the Education Department from 18th September 2000. There is a snap-in service for a period of one day on 17th September 2000.

(b) The writ petitioner after putting in service for more than 17 years, retired on attaining the age of superannuation as a PG Assistant in Mathematics on 31st December 2017. The pension proposal forwarded by the 2nd respondent was considered by the 1st respondent and in the impugned proceeding, the 1st respondent has refused to calculate the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Electricity Board as part of the qualifying service for the purpose of settling the pension towards the petitioner’s service, with the Education Department. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition and with a prayer for a consequential Mandamus.

4. Mr. Louise is unable to draw my attention to any service rules or any legal precedent that enables to reckon his service with the Electricity Board as a qualifying service, to calculate his pensionable service with the Educational Department. Rather Mr. P Gunasekaran brings to my notice a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD)No. 1241 of 2022, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu Vs.

V.Govindan decided on 5th January 2026 and the relevant portion is extracted as under: “6. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that the petitioner must show that the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board is a pensionable establishment for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. For that, the petitioner must show that he was paid by the Tamil Nadu Government from the consolidated fund of the State or a local fund administered by the Government. It is seen that as per Sections 73 and 74 of the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board Act, 1995, all the monies received by or on behalf of the Board shall be credited to a fund called “general account” of the board. The salaries of the employees of the board would be paid out of the monies so credited to the General Account under Section 73 of the Act. The petitioner has nowhere shown that he was paid by the Government of Tamil Nadu from the consolidated fund to the State or any local fund administered by it. On the other hand, it can be seen that he was paid out of the fund called general account of the board under Section 73 of the Act. This vital aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge. We are of the view that the service put in by the petitioner in Tamil Nadu Maritime Board cannot be called as “government service” for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.”

5. Mr. C Jeganathan, learned Special Government Pleader brings to my notice, another Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Joseph Sebastian in WA(MD)No.686 of 2022 decided on 24 March 2025 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:

11. It is also worth to know that the Senior Judge who authored the judgment in W.A(MD)No.3868 of 2019, which been relied by the learned Single Judge as a precedent subsequently, while sitting with another learned Judge, had changed his view following the other two judgments which cited above, in the Government of Tamil Nadu and others~vs~S.Arulmani in W.A(MD)No.1118 of 2019, vide judgment dated 05.03.2012 after referring the Government Orders pertaining to fixation of pay scale of teachers, who rendered service under the Private School Management in a sanctioned post getting appointment in the Government School, had distinguished that a fresh appointee in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher cannot claim her past service under the private mangement. Thus, the judgments rendered by the Court consistently had held that the application of FR 22B can be extended only if there is a migration or transfer of one service to another. If the subsequent appointment is a direct recruit, there cannot be any mandatory benefit in view of the past service. The judgments rendered in case where the teachers were transferred from one department to another or migrated to one department to another cannot be relied as a precedent to extend the benefit to the teachers who had been recruited afresh directly by the Government through direct recruitment process. It is made clear in the catena of judgment cited above and reiterated again by the Division Bench in the Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. S.Arulmani, in the following terms: “12.G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1983 and G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969, relied upon by the writ petitioner, are not applicable to his case, since in those cases, the Teachers got prior permission from the Government for such transfer from one Department to another. Further, there is no specific provision in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules for transfer of appointee from one unit of Establishment or Department to another unit of Establishment or Department. In the absence of such Rules or specific orders from the Government, the request of the writ petitioner cannot be entertained and he has no merit in this case. But the learned Single Judge, without considering the above facts, allowed the Writ Petition and hence, the same may be set aside.

15. In this regard, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to

G.O.Ms.No.1580, Education Department, dated 18.10.1969 and submitted that the said G.O. provides for protection of last drawn pay to the Teachers, who resigned service from one Management and joined another Management. Similarly, in G.O.Ms.No.2357, Education, Science and Technology Department, 27.12.1983, the Government of Tamil Nadu delegated power to the Director of Elementary Education to grant the last drawn pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers, who had resigned from service in Anglo Indian Schools and joined as a teacher in Aided Schools. Those two G.Os. are issued to protect the last drawn pay of the Teachers, who are transferred from one post to another post, which carries same scale of pay. Since the petitioner was transferred from one Government Department to another Government Department, he stands on better footing than the teachers working in the Aided Schools. Therefore, following the said G.O.s, the writ petitioner is entitled for the last drawn pay protection. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly extended the benefits of the said G.Os. to the respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order, and thus, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

21. On a perusal of the appointment order dated 23.07.1999 issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal, we find that the writ petitioner was appointed as a fresh appointee in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the pay scale of

Rs.4500~125~7000 as per the list sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. Further, absolutely no documentary evidence was produced by the writ petitioner to show that he was transferred from the Social Welfare Department to the Education Department.”

12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that recently the learned Single Judge of this Court, in R.Lilly Theras vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide order dated 14.03.2024, has followed the judgment rendered in W.A.No.3868 of 2019, The Secretary to State Government and another ~vs~ G.Rufus David, and has allowed the writ petition extending the benefit of FR and refixation of pay scale. With great respect to the learned Single Judge, it is noted that though the judgment of S.K.Kannan v. The Director of School Education, and others, in W.A(MD)No.627 of 2022 was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, he had observed that the dictum laid in the S.K.Kannan judgment will not apply to the case in hand. He had distinguished the case under his consideration with that of the fact in S.K.Kannan’s case. According to this Court, since the facts in S.K.Kannan’s case as well as the S.Arulmani case and L.Esakkiraj case, are identical to the facts of the case in hand and bound by the judgments rendered by the equallent strength, allow the writ appeal following the three judgments which is based on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Palure Bhaskar Rao

Etc. Etc. v. P. Ramaseshaiah & Ors, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 783.

13. We hold that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ of mandamus ignoring the consistent view of the Division Bench judgment, liable to be set aside.”

6. Admittedly in the present case from the facts culled out earlier, the employment of the writ petitioner with the Educational Department is a new employment and it is not in continuation of his service with the Electricity Board. He chose the greener pasture and shifted to the Education Department as a B.T. Assistant and was even promoted to the post of PG Assistant in 2010. There is no merit in the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the categorical provinces of the Division Bench Judgments extracted above and the writ petition fails.

7. The writ petition is dismissed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No psm

To

1. The Principal Accountant General (a And E), No.361 Annasalai, Chennai-18.

2. The Head Master, Arulmigu Kumaragurubarar Swamigal Government (g) Higher Secondary School, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi Dt-628 601.

N.DILIP KUMAR, J. psm WP(MD) No. 22185 of 2018 13-10-2026