Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 20.04.2010 and direct respondents 2 and 4 to compute the service of the petitioner from 11.01.1998 to 01.06.2003 for pensionary benefits in the light of the order in W.P.No. 26933 and 26934 of 2007 dated 23.04.2008. 2. When the writ petition was posted for admission, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents was directed to take notice to verify whether the matter in issue is covered by the earlier orders of this Court. 3. Today, the learned Government Advocate submits that the matter in issue is covered by the earlier orders of this Court. Hence, this Court passing the following order with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate, who is appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 11.01.1998 in the sixth respondent’s school, which is the aided recognition school. The petitioner joined in the said school on 12.01.1998. The proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner was forwarded by the sixth respondent to the fourth respondent, which was rejected on the ground that the appointment was not made through the Employment Exchange and it was made through paper advertisement. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.559 Education dated 11.07.1995 and prohibited appointment of higher qualified persons to the Secondary Grade post. The petitioner was having B.A., and B.Ed., degree. That was also stated as one of the reasons for rejecting the approval sought for. The said Government order was challenged before this Court and the learned single Judge, by order dated 19.05.1998, dismissed the writ petitions against which, writ appeals were preferred and Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.06.2001 while upholding the Government order held that the teachers appointed upto the date of dismissal of the writ petition i.e. from 11.7.1995 to 19.05.1998 have to be given approval. The Government had also accepted the undertaking by devising a modality. The said judgment is reported in 2002 Writ Law Reporter 173. The Government had also accepted the undertaking by devising a modality. The said judgment is reported in 2002 Writ Law Reporter 173. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 155 School Education (D2) Department, dated 03.10.2002 and ordered to give one month Child Psychology Training to such of those higher qualified teachers appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers from 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998 and thereafter the petitioner was sent for Child Psychology Training and his appointment was approved with effect from 02.06.2003. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the G.O.Ms.No. 155 School of the said Government Order. Therefore, the said Government Order can not be followed in his case. 6. In similar circumstances, a batch of writ petitions came to be field before this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department), dated 06.08.2004 on the same ground which has been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court in the batch of writ petitions W.P.Nos.26933 and 26934 of 2007, dated 23.04.2008 while holding that on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the validity or otherwise of the Government Order held that that the Government Order cannot be made applicable in cases were the appointments are made before the Government order came into effect because the said Government Order is prospective in nature. The operative portion of the said order is as follows: “8. In the light of the above undisputed facts and the order of Division Bench having become final due to the dismissal of Civil Appeals on 13.03.2008, the petitioners are entitled to get their pension and other benefits as per the then prevailing Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. There is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed in Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies in sanctioned posts in aided schools before 01.04.2003. The Government order dated 06.08.2004 specifically states that persons appointed/recruited after 01.04.2003 are not governed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and will be governed under the new scheme. The petitioners having been appointed prior to 19.05.1998 all the petitioners are given Child Psychology Training in terms of G.O.Ms.No.115 Education, dated 03.10.2002. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance dated 06.08.2004 cannot be applied to the petitioners. The petitioners having been appointed prior to 19.05.1998 all the petitioners are given Child Psychology Training in terms of G.O.Ms.No.115 Education, dated 03.10.2002. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance dated 06.08.2004 cannot be applied to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners will be satisfied if the petitioners are given the relief of Pension Scheme applicable prior to 01.04.2003 and the G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2004 need not be quashed. 9. In view of the said submissions, it is ordered that the petitioners are to be extended the Pension Scheme applicable to the Teachers appointed prior to 01.04.2003 and they are not governed under G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2004. If the pensionary contributions if any, payable by the petitioners as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 are not paid Education Department dated 03.10.2002. The said Government Order was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2004 (2) Law Weekly 591 and in the said judgment, the Division Bench has ordered that the services rendered by the said teachers prior to the completion of Child Psychology Training, shall be counted for pension alone. The petitioner is also given the time scale of pay of Rs. 4500/- from the said date i.e. from 02.06.2003 i.e., from the date of completion of the one month Child Psychology Training. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 06.08.2004 was issued stating that the persons appointed after 01.04.2003 are not eligible for getting pension benefits. The said issue was also considered by me in a case similar to the facts of this case in W.P.No.26933 and 26934 of 2007 and by order dated 23.04.2008 it has been held in the said case that the validity of the said Government order need not be gone into as the petitioner therein having been ordered to be given service benefit prior to the completion of Child Psychology Training for the purpose of pension, the said service shall be counted for the purpose of pension and the said subsequent Government order cannot be applied to the petitioners therein. The said judgment was followed by P. Jyothimani, J, S. Nagamuthu, J, M. Sathyanarayanan, J, T.S. Sivagnanam, J, V. Ramasubramanian, J, and one of the order made in W.P. (MD) No. 1375 of 2010 dated 03.03.2010 (P. Jyothimani, J.) is also produced before me. In the said order it is held thus. “5. The said judgment was followed by P. Jyothimani, J, S. Nagamuthu, J, M. Sathyanarayanan, J, T.S. Sivagnanam, J, V. Ramasubramanian, J, and one of the order made in W.P. (MD) No. 1375 of 2010 dated 03.03.2010 (P. Jyothimani, J.) is also produced before me. In the said order it is held thus. “5. The new pension rule was enacted from 01.04.2003 as per the said Rule person who were appointed on or after 01.04.2003 shall not be eligible for pension or gratuity and they shall be allowed only in Contributory Pension scheme as per the scheme framed under various Government Orders including the impugned Government Order G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department), dated 06.08.2004. As per the impugned Government Order the employers who were appointed on or after 01.4.2003 became the members of the scheme. The said impugned Government Order insist that each employer shall have to pay monthly contribution of 10% of basic pay and DA from his salary to the Contributory Pension Scheme and matching contribution will be made by the State Government for each employee who contributes to the scheme. The writ petitioner challenges the impugned Government Order on the ground that his appointment is before the date of the Government Order and therefore, he cannot be governed under the said Government Order. In any event, the vires of the Government Order is challenged on various grounds. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, when the petitioner has got qualified and he was appointed much before the Government Order came into existence, simply because he was sent for child psychology training in the year 2005 which is due to the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be held responsible since his appointment is before the date till dated by the petitioners, it is open to the respondents to claim the same from the petitioners. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” It is thereby held that even in respect of the persons who have finished the child psychology after the impugned Government Order came into force, then once it is found that such candidates were appointed before the commencement of the Government Order in the sanctioned vacancies, then existing pension rule alone should apply. The learned Judge ultimately decided not to go into the question as to whether the said Government Order is valid or otherwise. The learned Judge ultimately decided not to go into the question as to whether the said Government Order is valid or otherwise. Following the said order many orders came to be passed by this Court consistently including the latest order in W.P.No.10447 of 2008 dated 16.07.200. Applying the facts and circumstances of the case to the said dictum laid down by this Court consistently, there is no difficulty to conclude that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that only after the training in child psychology has been completed, the appointment should be deemed to be valid has no force. In fact, the Division Bench in a batch of writ appeals where G.O.Ms.No.559 Education Department, dated 11.07.1995, came to be challenged while upholding the validity of the said Government Order has held that the past service of the petitioners therein shall count for pension which is as follows: “7. So far as the approvals/confirmation is concerned, Government was not under any duty to approve or confirm the appointment of appellants/petitioners who did not possess the qualifications prescribed when, they were improperly appointed to the posts. Their position cannot be equated to that of those who posses the qualification and had been duly appointed, Their remaining in their post was only by reason of a sympathetic view taken by the Divisions Bench which had upheld the Government Order which had directed that parsons with B.Ed., Qualification are not to be appointed in Secondary Grade Vacancies. 8. Their right to be regarded as person eligible for confirmation/approval can be said to arise only after they acquired, after their training, a minimum prescribed qualification. The Government here has shown great concession to them by allowing them to retain their position even without obtaining the requisite diploma or certificate in child psychology by giving to them training in child psychology. We see nothing wrong in the Government directing that their approval/confirmation can only be on and after the date they complete the training. Their past service however shall count for pension.” 7. Ultimately holding that the past service of such parsons, who were appointed before the Government Order even they have not gone through the child psychology training, shall be counted for pension purpose. Their past service however shall count for pension.” 7. Ultimately holding that the past service of such parsons, who were appointed before the Government Order even they have not gone through the child psychology training, shall be counted for pension purpose. In the explicit view taken by the Division Bench, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that it is only after the training in child psychology has been taken up, the appointment should be deemed to be valid. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that on facts and circumstances of the case, this Court need not go into the question of validity or otherwise of the impugned Government Order G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department) dated 06.08.2004. It is suffice to hold that the said Government Order in its term based on the decision of the Division Bench as well as the subsequent two orders passed by this Court, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner’s case who was admittedly appointed before the announcement of the said Government Order and only because the petitioner was sent for child psychology course by the respondent at a later point of time that does not mean that the original appointment of the petitioner will become invalid especially when the same has been protected for the persons like that of the petitioner after the Division Bench Judgment. 9. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to fix pension amount of the petitioner based on the existing pension rule and not applying the impugned Government Order G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department), dated 06.08.2004. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that none of the orders referred to above have been appeals till date. 6. In the light of the above undisputed facts, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to count the petitioner’s earlier service i.e. from 12.01.1998 to 01.06.2003 for the purpose of pension and not to apply G.O.Ms.No.430 Finance (Pension Department) dated 06.08.2004 to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.