JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.15906 of 2018, dated 23.07.2018.) 1. The official respondents in W.P.(MD).No.15906 of 2018 are the appellants. 2. The first respondent/writ petitioner had filed the said writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants/official respondents to re-fix the pension by taking into account, 50% of part time services rendered by him between 15.03.1986 and 22.09.1996, along with the regular service in the light of the order dated 09.04.2014, passed in W.P.No.16771 of 2013, based on his representation dated 23.06.2017. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner would state that he was appointed as a Double Part Time Vocational Instructor on 15.03.1986, at N.A.Annapparaja Memorial Higher Secondary School, Rajapalayam and his services were regularised vide proceedings dated 15.05.2000, from 22.09.1996 onwards and having attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017, he retired from service. 4. The writ petitioner would further aver that at a later point of time, he became aware of the fact that this Court, vide order, dated 16.04.2009 in W.P.No.39177 of 2002, had directed the concerned official respondents to count 50% of the part-time services rendered by the persons similarly placed like that of the petitioner for the purpose of calculating the pension. The said writ petition came to be allowed and a challenge made to the said order by filing W.A.No.1702 of 2010, also came to be dismissed on 20.09.2010, so also, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the said writ petitioner. 5. The petitioner in this regard, has submitted a representation and despite receipt and acknowledgement, no order has been passed and hence, he came forward to file the writ petition. Similar matters were grouped and taken up together by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, by common order dated 23.07.2018, had exhaustively analysed the factual aspects and the legal position as well as all the earlier decisions rendered in this regard and disposed of a batch of cases in W.P(MD)Nos.1910 of 2016, etc., and it is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph 10: “10. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are ordered and insofar as some of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.(MD) Nos.15469 to 15476/2018, where rejection orders have been challenged, the said impugned orders are hereby quashed and the said writ petitions are also ordered in the terms of the said order dated 09.07.2018 by giving the following directions: "the respective respondents in each of the writ petitions are hereby directed to take into account the 50% of the past services rendered by each of the petitioners either as Vocational Instructors or any other employment either as a Part Time/Full time/adhoc/temporary/daily wages employees before they brought in under the regular time scale of pay on permanent basis or absorption and by calculating the said 50% of their past service, pension eligibility and pension enhancement or difference of pay and pension shall be calculated and disbursed in favour of the respective petitioners. After fixing the revised pension by taking into account the past 50% services, the revised pension arrears shall be calculated and to be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall continue to receive the revised pension." No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 6. Challenging the legality of the said order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 15906 of 2018, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 7. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall continue to receive the revised pension." No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 6. Challenging the legality of the said order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 15906 of 2018, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the common judgment dated 06.04.2018 in W.A.No.882 of 2017, etc., batch [Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai – 9 and Others v. K.Pachaiyappan and other] and it is the forceful submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents that the Division Bench while disposing of the Writ Appeal had shifted the cut-off date as the delivery of the said judgment, viz., 06.04.2018 and admittedly, the affidavit in the writ petition came to the sworn only on 17.07.2018, which is beyond cut-off date and that apart, though the writ petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017, had waited for nearly one year on the sidelines and after knowing about the disposal of the cases, suddenly jumped into bandwagon and claimed relief and since the respondent/writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, he is not entitled to get any relief in this writ appeal. 8. During the course of arguments, the attention of this Court was also invited to the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and others v. R.Kaliyamoorthy, reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705 , wherein, one of the issues is relating to the counting of 50% of the service for the purpose of terminal benefits, in the light of the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and in paragraph 45, answered the references as follows : “45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows:- (i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003 (ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. (iii) In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in Non-Provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services were regularised before 01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. (iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension. (v) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension." 9. No doubt, the writ petitioner had approached the Court with a few months delay and it is not in dispute that but for the fixation of cut-off date, he would have been entitled to the benefits of service rendered by him as a Double Part Time Vocational Instructor. The learned Judge in the impugned common order had also referred to the above cited common judgment dated 06.04.2018, made in W.A.No.882 of 2017 etc., and having noted the fact that persons similarly placed have been granted the benefits and also taking note of various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had held that the writ petitioners are entitled to such benefits. 10. 10. Admittedly, the fact of the case would disclose that the petitioner had approached the Court with a delay of three months and in the light of answering of the references in paragraph No.45 of the above cited Full Bench judgment [ (2019) 6 CTC 705 ] (supra), this Court finds no merit in this Writ Appeal. However, it is made clear that if at all any future claim is made by any persons who are similarly placed like that of the writ petitioners who had worked as Single/Double Part Time Vocational Instructors, they are not entitled for any interest on the settlement of the retiral/terminal benefits. 11. In the result, Writ Appeal is dismissed, subject to the above observations, confirming the order dated 23.07.2018, passed in W.P(MD)No.15906 of 2018. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.