Part-time service and service followed by resignation cannot be counted toward qualifying service for pension.

The petitioner, R.N. Arul Jothi, served as a Part-Time Vocational Instructor/Teacher in two schools between 30.07.1982 and 25.10.1988.

He resigned from his part-time post on 25.10.1988 and subsequently joined the Madras High Court service on 06.02.1989.

He retired as an Assistant Registrar on 31.08.2018.

The petitioner sought to include 50% of his part-time teaching service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, which was rejected by the first respondent on 01.08.2024.

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

1. Whether 50% of the services rendered as a Part-Time Vocational Instructor can be counted toward qualifying service for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978?

2. Whether the resignation from the previous post and subsequent break in service entail forfeiture of past service?

Rule 11(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that for 50% of past service to count toward pension, the employment must have been a "whole time employment" and not "part-time for a portion of the day".

Rule 11(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 requires such service to be continuous and followed by regular absorption without a break.

Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which mandates that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service, unless the resignation was to take up another post with proper permission.

The court's reasoning on how a law applied to the facts: The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim failed because under Rule 11(2)(i), qualifying service for pension specifically excludes part-time employment; since the petitioner served as a "Part Time Vocational Instructor," the statutory requirement for "whole time employment" was not met.

The Court observed a break in service between the petitioner's resignation from the school (25.10.1988) and his entry into High Court service (06.02.1989).

Explanation of the court's interpretation: Applying Rule 23, the Court found that the petitioner’s resignation led to the forfeiture of past service because he failed to demonstrate that he resigned with proper permission to take up a new appointment that qualifies under the Rules.

The final order or relief granted by the court: The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. No costs were ordered.