JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Roc No.50222/ N.M.P-1/ 2013 dated 20.06.2014 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to count the 50% services of the petitioner rendered as Noon Meal Organizer along with his regular service as VAO and to grant pension with arrears arising thereof and other retirement benefits.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to count 50% of the service rendered by him in the post of Noon Meal Organiser for the purpose of pensionary benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Noon Meal Organiser on 16.05.1984. The petitioner was working in the full time job as a Noon Meal Organiser and was a regular employee. The petitioner served about 16 years, 6 months and 15 days until he was selected to the post of Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and relieved from the post of Noon Meal Organiser on 30.11.2000. On such relieving, the petitioner joined in the post of Village Administrative Officer on 19.12.2000. Thus, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Noon Meal Organiser in order to take up the fresh appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer (VAO), in which, he has joined on 19.12.2000. 3. The petitioner served as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and retired from the service on 30.06.2008. Thus, he has completed near about 8 years of service as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and not eligible for pension. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application to count 50% of the services based on the amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules as qualifying services for the purpose of granting all pensionary benefits and monthly pension. The said application was not considered and the petitioner thereafter, filed W.P.No.32216 of 2013 and this Court passed an order on 28.11.2013, based on the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Social Welfare in proceedings dated 20.06.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner resigned the job of the Noon Meal Organiser for the purpose of joining as Village Administrative Officer (VAO). Since he has resigned the job, the petitioner is not eligible for the counting of 50% of the services. 4. The authorities have rejected the contention of the petitioner mainly on the ground that resignation amounts to forfeiture of his past services. However, the proviso Clause 2 Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules has not been considered by the respondents. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, stipulates forfeiture of service on resignation. Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past services, but in proviso Clause states that “Provided that a resignation shall not entails 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.” 5. In the present case, the petitioner served as Noon Meal organiser in the Social Welfare Department for about 16 years, 6 months and 15 days as regular employee. He had submitted resignation to take up the appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer, which is under the Revenue Department. Therefore, the petitioner had resigned the job from the post of Noon Meal Organiser to take up the job in the Revenue Department as Village Administrative Officer and in the present case, he was relieved from the post of Noon Meal Organiser on 30.11.2000 and in the post of Village Administrative Officer on 19.12.2000. This being the factum, the past services are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualified services. In view of the fact that the post of Noon Meal Organiser was a temporary service on consolidated pay, the petitioner has restricted his relief for counting 50% of the services, as per the amendment Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 6. In view of the fact that the post of Noon Meal Organiser was a temporary service on consolidated pay, the petitioner has restricted his relief for counting 50% of the services, as per the amendment Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 6. In view of the fact that consolidated service in the post of Noon Meal Organiser rendered by the writ petitioner continued by the regular services in the post of Village Administrative Officer, he is entitled for counting of 50% of service rendered in the Noon Meal Organiser for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits and accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 1st respondent Roc No.50222/ N.M.P-1/ 2013 dated 20.06.2014 is quashed and the respondents are directed to count 50% service of the writ petitioner rendered in the post of Noon Meal Organiser along with his regular service in the post of Village Administrative Officer and accordingly, settle the pensionary benefits and monthly pension and the arrears, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With this direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.