Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 20.09.2007 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 05.10.2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher in C.S.M. Central School, Arakkonam. However, he has been transferred to various schools under the said management till 31.05.1948. Thereafter, he was appointed in the N. Kuppusamy Mudaliar Hindu Elementary School, Arakkonam, on 14.06.1948, wherein he served upto 30.03.1969. On 31.03.1969, he resigned from service. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2006, his pension proposal was forwarded by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Arakkonam. But he was informed by the 4th respondent that since he had resigned the post in the year 1969, after the crucial date viz., 31.05.1958, i.e. the date on which pension benefits in respect of Aided School teachers was introduced, he is not entitled for the pension and the same was communicated to him by the impugned orders. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed 3. As per the impugned orders, the ground on which the petitioner’s request for relaxation of the Rule was rejected is that he had resigned the post in 1969, whereas the crucial date as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department, dated 05.01.1983 is 01.04.1955, i.e., as far as Non Governmental Schools are concerned, the staff of that school were not entitled for pension benefits, however, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department dated 05.01.1983 extended the benefit of pension to the staff of the Non Governmental Educational Institutions also. But as per the said Government order, if the resignation of the concerned staff is prior to 01.04.1955, the staff is entitled for the pension, though the concerned teacher had resigned the post. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he had also submitted resignation on 30.03.1969. Basing on this, the request for sanction of pension has been rejected. But the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on paragraph 7 of the Division Bench Judgment in the case of The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary, Department of Education Etc. Vs. Basing on this, the request for sanction of pension has been rejected. But the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on paragraph 7 of the Division Bench Judgment in the case of The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary, Department of Education Etc. Vs. S.V. Paul Jeyaraj reported in 2001 Writ L.R. 852, wherein the Division Bench had taken a view that the benefit of the said G.O. has to be given effect to in respect of those teachers who have resigned the post even after the crucial date viz., 01.04.1955. Consequently, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled for the pension benefits. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, basing on the proposal submitted by the other respondent, as far as the Accountant General is concerned, they will pass an order. 5. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, as per the pension rules, any Government Servant who had resigned the post is not eligible for pension and in respect of teachers of the Non Governmental Institutions, the G.O. is very clear. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits sought for. 6. The ground on which the petitioner’s request was rejected by the impugned orders is that he had submitted resignation letter after the crucial date i.e. after 01.04.1955. But as per the Judgment referred to above, even those who have submitted resignation subsequent to the crucial date viz., 01.04.1955 are eligible for pension in view of G.O.Ms.No.27 referred to above. The Division Bench in paragraph 7 of its order, had also taken a view that paragraph 6 of the said Government order has to be interpreted to the manner indicated in paragraph 7 of the Judgment. That is to say, the benefit has to be extended to the teachers who had resigned their post after 01.04.1955, so as to make them eligible for pension. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Though the said order copy had not been produced before this Court, since the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Though the said order copy had not been produced before this Court, since the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if he is otherwise eligible, sanction pension within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.