JUDGMENT : P.D. Audikesavalu, J. 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 03.11.2016 in W.P. No. 34878 of 2016 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. 2. The Appellant, who was initially appointed on temporary basis in the Third Respondent/School in the year 1986, after regularization of service was designated as Secondary Grade Assistant from 04.06.1987 and continued to work in that post till 03.03.2003. According to the Appellant, she had voluntarily retired from service due to her deteriorating health. It is further claimed that she has been completely bedridden since then. The Appellant made an application for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, through the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Panruti, which was rejected by the First Respondent in the Order No. P24/1/12413871/ADK/23 dated 30.08.2016 stating that as the Appellant had resigned on 03.03.2003, and in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, her resignation will forfeit the past service rendered and she is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, which can be admitted only on receipt of specific Government Order. The Appellant challenged the said order of rejection in W.P. No. 34878 of 2016, which was dismissed by the Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, by order dated 03.11.2016 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C. Jacob -vs- Director of Geology and Mining [ (2008) 10 SCC 115 ], cited by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, in which it has been held that the qualifying period of service for the purpose of pension in the case of voluntary retirement is twenty years as specified in Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, apart from the factual contention of the Respondents that in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, her resignation forfeits past service for which she will not be entitled to any pension. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Mrs. T. Hemalatha, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. C. Munusamy, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Respondents, Ms. H. Mary Sowmi Rexi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. Hema Muralikrishnan, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. C. Munusamy, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Respondents, Ms. H. Mary Sowmi Rexi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. We are in agreement with the Writ Court that since it is the case of the Respondents that the Appellant had resigned from service, she would not be eligible to pension in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and even if the case the Appellant is treated as one of voluntary retirement, she does not possess the required qualifying service of twenty years for grant of pension under Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, has brought to the notice of this Court that even in the order No. P24/1/12413871/ADK/23 dated 30.08.2016 passed by the First Respondent rejecting the claim of the Appellant for pension, it has been mentioned that pensionary benefits can be admitted only on receipt of specific Government Order and that Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, empowers the concerned department of the Government in which the person has worked to relax the operation of the Rules which causes undue hardship in a particular case and that the Appellant has now made a representation dated 10.04.2019 enclosing all the required supporting materials in justification of her claim for relaxation, which may be disposed by the Fourth Respondent (who has been impleaded as a party by order dated 24.04.2019 in C.M.P. No. 9843 of 2019), within a reasonable time that may be fixed by this Court. 6. We find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, reads as follows:- “Power to relax:- Where any Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Department may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Finance Department.” It could be seen from the facts set out that the Appellant on ceasing to be in service after working as Secondary Grade Assistant for the period from 04.06.1987 to 03.03.2003, was bed-ridden as she has been suffering from various ailments, and has not been able to take up any other employment. In particular, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that around the year 2002, while in service, the Appellant was diagnosed with Tumor, viz., Vestibular Schwannoma, which has virtually crippled the Appellant from having normal life as she had frequent falls, which had necessitated her to give up her employment. Though the Appellant contends that she had voluntarily retired from service, while the First Respondent claims that she had resigned forfeiting her past service, the fact yet remains that the Appellant is in a pathetic situation and her claim for grant of pension in relaxation of rules deserves due consideration. 7. In that view of the matter, we direct the Fourth Respondent, viz., the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department to consider the representation dated 10.04.2019 made by the Appellant for relaxation of the relevant rules for grant of pension taking into account the undue hardship suffered by her, and after conducting necessary enquiry for verifying the factual correctness of the claim made, pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law in the exercise of powers under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and communicate the decision taken to the Appellant, the First Respondent and all other authorities, as required, by 16.08.2019. In order to expedite the matter, we also permit the Appellant to submit another copy of the representation along with a copy of this order enclosing materials in support of her claim to the Fourth Respondent by 15.06.2019. 8. The Writ Appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs