G.Sampath vs The Government of Tamil nadu

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 34284 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA012041612022}
G.Sampath
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and panchayat Raj
Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 09.
2. The Director of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.
3. The District Collector, (PD Section)
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
4. The Principal Accountant General (A and E)
Tamil Nadu
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 018.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to count 50% service
rendered by the Petitioner in the post of part time panchayat clerk from
15.03.1984 to 31.01.1991 for the purpose of granting pension along with the
part time service rendered by the petitioner between 01.01.1991 and 28.12.2000
together with his regular service rendered between 22.12.2000 to 31.01.2019 in
accordance with the directions given by the Honble Division Bench Judgement
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
259 of 2016 etc., dated 10.03.2016.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.S.Viswanathan,
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.T.Hemalatha
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Ram Siddharatha,
Additional Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)
Mr.P.Manorajan,
Standing Counsel (For R4)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents to count 50% of the past service rendered
by the petitioner as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 15.03.1984 to 31.01.1991
for the purpose of calculating pension, along with the part-time service rendered
by the petitioner between 01.01.1991 and 28.12.2000 and his regular service
rendered between 22.12.2000 and 31.01.2019, in accordance with the directions
issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.259 of 2016, dated
10.03.2016.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk on
15.03.1984 and continued in the said position until 31.12.1990. With effect
from 01.01.1991, the post was redesignated as Panchayat Assistant.
Subsequently, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Veppanapalli
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
Panchayat Union with effect from 22.12.2000, and eventually retired from
service on 31.01.2019 as a Deputy Block Development Officer. It is the
submission of the petitioner that, though the pension authorities have counted
50% of his past service rendered from 01.01.1991 to 28.12.2000, his service as
a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 15.03.1984 to 31.12.1990 has not been taken
into account for the purpose of calculating pension.
2.1. The petitioner claims that G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 13.06.2011, extended the benefit of
counting 50% of the past Panchayat service for pensionary purposes. Though
the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4)
Department, dated 12.07.2013, withdrew the said benefit, in view of the various
Division Bench judgement of this Court, the petitioner claims that 50% of his
past part-time service is liable to be counted for the purpose of calculating
pension. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that, as per G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, dated 13.06.2011, 50% of the part-time service was permitted to be
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
counted for the purpose of calculating pension and that the said Government
Order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Though the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules")
stipulate that the benefit of counting past service is applicable only to regular
employees, since G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, dated 13.06.2011, issued with the concurrence of the Finance
Department, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the same should be
construed as a relaxation granted by the Department under Rule 82 of the
Pension Rules, taking into consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the
employees concerned.
4.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, though
G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4) Department,
dated 12.07.2013, was subsequently issued withdrawing the said benefit, the
Government Order protected the rights that had already accrued upon persons
who had benefited under G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011. Therefore, the
petitioner, having acquired a vested right under G.O.Ms.No.39, cannot be
deprived of the said benefit by a subsequent Government Order. This position,
according to the learned Senior Counsel, has been considered in various
judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, more particularly, in The
Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Duraisamy (W.A.No.3784 of 2024, dated
06.01.2025), which was subsequently followed by another Division Bench in
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
W.A.No.2660 of 2025, dated 10.09.2025. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel
would contend that the petitioner's past part-time service is liable to be counted
for the purpose of calculating pension and, accordingly, seeks issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus.
5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents and
would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's date of
appointment as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk, his subsequent redesignation as a
Panchayat Assistant, and his appointment as a Junior Assistant with effect from
22.12.2000. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader would
specifically contend that, under Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules, past service
can be counted only in respect of eligible regular employees and that the said
position has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Government
of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy , reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705. Therefore,
notwithstanding the judgments of the Division Benches relied upon by the
petitioner, the issue having already been clarified by the Full Bench of this
Court, the petitioner's request for counting his part-time service is not
maintainable. In this regard, he would also rely upon the latest decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram,
reported in 2026:MHC:2486. Hence, he prayed to dismiss of the present Writ
Petition.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side.
7. It is not in dispute that, by G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011, the
Government directed that 50% of the past service be counted for pensionary
purposes, irrespective of whether such service was rendered on a full-time or
part-time basis. It is equally an admitted fact that, by G.O.Ms.No.77, dated
12.07.2013, the aforesaid benefit was withdrawn in respect of part-time
employees. However, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that
G.O.Ms.No.39 was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department and
that, in view of the specific provisions of the Pension Rules permitting the
counting of 50% of past non-provincialised full-time service for pensionary
purposes, the relaxation granted under G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a
conscious decision of the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 82
of the Pension Rules. For ready reference, the relevant provision is extracted
hereunder:-
“ 82. 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
requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
exception 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.”
8. On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that G.O.Ms.No.39 was
issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Therefore, it may be
construed, to that extent, as a concession extended to the employees concerned.
However, by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, the very same
Department withdrew the said concession. Therefore, insofar as the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel that G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a
relaxation granted under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules is concerned, this Court
is of the firm view that such relaxation was subsequently withdrawn by
G.O.Ms.No.77. Hence, the contention based on Rule 82 of the Pension Rules
cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Coming to the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, as
rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the Division Bench in
A.Duraisamy's case (cited supra) has categorically considered the issue relating
to the counting of 50% of past part-time service for calculating pension, with
reference to G.O.Ms.No.39 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77. The Division
Bench ultimately held that the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.39 could not
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
be withdrawn in respect of those employees who had already acquired such a
right, particularly when G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, itself preserved the
benefits already accrued to the eligible employees.
10. However, in a subsequent decision, the Division Bench of this Court
in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra) distinguished the various judgments
rendered by the earlier Division Benches of this Court, having regard to the
relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, particularly Rule 11, and the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). The
Division Bench held that the Full Bench had categorically clarified the legal
position and declared that the benefit of counting 50% of past service towards
pension was available only to employees who had rendered full-time service
and not to those who had rendered part-time service. In view of the said Full
Bench decision and the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, the earlier
judgments of the Division Benches could not be treated as binding precedents to
the contrary.
11. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel, relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, would contend that, when an
earlier judgment co-equal bench has dealt with the same set of rules, a
subsequent co-equal Bench, if it intends to take a different view, must refer the
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
matter to a Larger Bench instead of taking a contrary view on its own. Any such
deviation from the aforesaid principle would amount to judicial impropriety.
This Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel. But the above argument has no application in the instant case,
as the previous bench was not informed about the binding decision of the Full
Bench.
12. In the case in hand, while considering the subsequent decision of the
Division Bench in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra), it is relevant to note
that the said Division Bench relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in R.Kaliyamoorthy's case, which had not been brought to the notice of
the earlier Division Benches. In R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra), the Full
Bench categorically held that the benefit of counting 50% of past service
towards pension was extended only to employees who had rendered full-time
service and not to those who had rendered part-time service. As already stated,
the said Full Bench decision had not been brought to the notice of the earlier
Division Benches while they were considering the issue.
13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the earlier Division Benches
had taken a different view. However, since the subsequent Division Bench in
A.Chidambaram's case followed the decision of the Full Bench and considered
the issue in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, this
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
Court is of the firm view that, sitting as a Single Judge, I am bound by the
decision of the Division Bench rendered on the basis of the Full Bench decision
in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra).
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the petitioner’s claim for counting 50% of his past part-time service for the
purpose of calculating pension cannot be granted, in view of Rule 11 of the
Pension Rules and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Rural
Development and panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 09.
2. The Director of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.
3. The District Collector, (PD Section)
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
4. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) Tamil Nadu
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 018.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4318
WP No. 34284 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 34284 of 2022
27-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )