Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.6810/A2/2007 dated 11.01.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 17.09.1982 to 02.01.1997 for pensionery benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Most Backward Class in the Union Territory of Puducherry. She joined the services of the respondent on 03.01.1997 and her services have been confirmed by an order dated 30.07.2000. The petitioner submitted that prior to her joining services of Tamil Nadu Education Department, she was working as a teacher in Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry from 17.09.1982. She was a regular employee of the said school and her services were brought under the Grant-in-aid scheme from the date of her joining. According to the petitioner, as per the Tamil Nadu Education Service Rules, the services rendered by her in the Union Territory of Puducherry, will have to be counted for the purpose of pension. She had stated that she made a representation to the respondents, but was not fruitful. The petitioner further stated that there are instances where the services rendered in the Union Territory of Puducherry, have been taken into account for the purpose of pension, when the teachers have been asked to work in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she, after making proper application, resigned the services, she was relieved on 02.01.1997 and she joined the services at Tamil Nadu on 03.01.1997. According to her, she has joined the services in Tamil Nadu, after routing her application through proper channel. It is very unfortunate that the services rendered by her in the school at Puducherry, which is an institution covered under the Grant-in-aid scheme, Education Department, Puducherry, have not been taken into account for granting pensionery benefits. From the letter of the Joint Secretary and Public Information Officer (Pension) dated 19.04.2007, it is clear that the services rendered earlier cannot be taken into account in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The period will be taken into account, if the petitioner was to join in some other institution, if the application was routed through proper channel and with prior permission. 4. The period will be taken into account, if the petitioner was to join in some other institution, if the application was routed through proper channel and with prior permission. 4. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has joined the services of Government Higher Secondary School, Karasanur, Tamil Nadu after resigning from the services of school at Puducherry. Even from the letter of the Chief Educational Officer addressed to the Director of School Education, it is clear that the petitioner was employed at Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry with effect from 01.08.1993 and her services have been regularised on 01.06.1985 and she was confirmed in service as a Secondary Grade Assistant. She resigned the job on 02.01.1997 and then she was properly and regularly appointed in the Government Higher Secondary School at Karasanur, Tamil Nadu on 03.01.1997 forenoon. The Chief Educational Officer has also referred to the Government orders in G.O.39 Pondicherry dated 06.08.1999 and G.O.No.56 Pondicherry dated 23.11.1999 that the services rendered earlier can be taken into account for the purpose of pensionery benefits and the papers have been forwarded for appropriate orders. The Chief Educational Officer, by his proceedings dated 11.01.2008 has passed an order that the services rendered at Puducherry school cannot be taken into account for the purpose of pensionery benefits, as the Education Rules are silent on this aspect and hence the petitioner is before this court. 5. The counter affidavit proceeds on the basis that in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, if a person resigns from the post, the entire past service shall be forfeited. He further stated that the petitioner was employed in a different State and the services cannot be taken into account for the purpose of invoking the benefit under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. According to the Government, the petitioner has rendered services in Puducherry State and in the Government of Tamil Nadu. But when it comes to the service benefits to take note of the entire services for granting pension in terms of Rule 23(1), it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit and if any benefit is given, it becomes as a bad precedent and is in violation of Rules. 6. Heard both parties. 7. But when it comes to the service benefits to take note of the entire services for granting pension in terms of Rule 23(1), it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit and if any benefit is given, it becomes as a bad precedent and is in violation of Rules. 6. Heard both parties. 7. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 extracted below: "23. Forfeiture of service on resignation.-(1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service: Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the services in Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry in 1983 and her services have been confirmed in 1985. She has submitted resignation, which was accepted and she was relieved on 02.01.1997 and she joined the services in Tamil Nadu on 03.01.1997. The entire application had been forwarded through proper channel to enable her to get appointment in Tamil Nadu. That fact is also not in dispute. When the resignation is for the purpose of seeking another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, the past services cannot be forfeited. If such a narrow interpretation is given to Rule 23, more particularly to proviso to Rule 23(1), the benefits to teachers like the petitioner, will not be extended at all. Denying the past services to the petitioner by quoting Rule 23(1) ignoring the proviso to the said Rule, is not correct as the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Rule 23(1). That apart, the petitioner has also given two examples of two persons, who have been transferred from Pondicherry to Tindivanam and in another case Pondicherry to Salem, wherein the past services of the persons have been taken into account by the Government for the purpose of the benefits. 9. In this case, the petitioner has sought for a limited prayer that the period of services rendered by her in Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry, should be taken into account only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 9. In this case, the petitioner has sought for a limited prayer that the period of services rendered by her in Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry, should be taken into account only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Hence I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the second respondent dated 11.01.2008 made in No.6810/A2/2007 is set aside. The respondents are directed to take into account the period of services rendered by the petitioner in Immaculate Heart of Mary Govt. Girls High School, Puducherry from 17.09.1982 to 02.01.1997, for arriving at the pensionary benefits. No cost.