S.Vijaya vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 25.09.2026
Pronounced on 16 .10.2026
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
{CNR: HCMD010078012021}
Case QR
S.Vijaya Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary ,
Revenue Department ,
St.George Fort, Chennai - 600009.
2. The District Collector,
Nagarcoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thovalai taluk,
Thobalai , Kanyakumari District. Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr.C. Kishore

For Respondent(s): Mr. T. Cibi Chakraborthy,
Additional Government Pleader
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue an appropriate writ or Order or Direction in the nature of writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
order of the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa2 /
47522/2018, dated 16/12/2019 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to the petitioners pension by considering
his entire period of service, i.e. from 04/12/1985 to 31/03/2009, or par with
various Judgments made by Honble Madras High Court, Madurai bench and
further direct the respondents to sanction petitioner's husband full pensionary
benefits accordingly.
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the second
respondent in Na. Ka. Aa2/47522/2018 and consequently directing the
respondents to fix the petitioner's pension by taking into account his entire
period of service from 04.12.1985 to 31.03.2009.
2. The averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition are as follows:
2(i). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would contend that the petitioner’s deceased husband, S. Bagavathi Perumal,
was temporarily appointed as ‘Grama Paniyalar’ in Thovalai village by virtue
rd
of proceedings vide B3.15645/85 by the 3 respondent on 03.12.1985 and
joined duty on 04.12.1985, and subsequently worked at Aralvaimozhy,
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
chenbagaramanputhur, Tirupathisaram, Boothapandy and Alagiapandiapuram
Villages as Grama Paniyalar. The petitioner submits that after serving for 23
years and 3 months, her husband has retired from service on 31.03.2009 on
attainment of superannuation. The petitioner submits that her deceased
husband’s pension was sanctioned for the period from 01.06.1995 to
30.09.2009 by relying on G.O.Ms. No. 625, Revenue Department, dated
06.07.1995, as the service was regularised from 01.06.1995 on a part-time
basis. The petitioner contends that her deceased husband’s initial
appointment was purely temporary and not on a part-time basis, as claimed by
the respondents, and, therefore, the aforesaid Government Order does not
apply to him. In support of this contention, she relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in District Collector and Another
v. K. Raman Nair , W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2009 , dated 16.02.2009, which was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondents herein and
affirmed upon dismissal of S.L.P.No.21683 of 2009.
2(ii). The petitioner further contends that the respondents have
neither established that the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980,
governed the appointment of her deceased husband nor demonstrated that the
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
said Rules prescribed part-time appointments in respect of persons similarly
placed. She submits that Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978,
which governs the commencement of qualifying service, recognises service
rendered in a temporary capacity. She further relies upon Rule 4(a) of Chapter
II of the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1996, which,
according to her, provides for reckoning temporary, officiating and permanent
service as qualifying service for pensionary purposes. The petitioner further
submits that her deceased husband’s service was regularised only with effect
from 01.06.1995, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated
06.07.1995, and that the respondents have erroneously excluded the service
rendered by him from 04.12.1985 to 31.05.1995 while computing his
qualifying service for pensionary purposes. Relying upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in District Collector and Another v. K.
Raman Nair , W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2009, dated 16.02.2009 , she submits that
persons appointed temporarily in a specified scale of pay cannot be equated
with those initially appointed as part-time Village Assistants and subsequently
brought into a time scale of pay under the said Government Order. She further
points out that the nature of the appointment, whether part-time with an
honorarium or temporary in a scale of pay, must be determined with reference
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
to the applicable Rules and guidelines as well as the appointment order issued
to the employee concerned.
2(iii). The petitioner also submits that the judgment in aforesaid
W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2009, dated 16.02.2009, was challenged by the
Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.21683 of 2009,
which was dismissed. According to her, the said judgment was thereafter
implemented, and several writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons were
also allowed, extending the corresponding pensionary benefits to them. She
contends that, as her deceased husband was also appointed temporarily, he is
similarly situated and cannot be denied the same pensionary benefits. Such
differential treatment, according to her, is arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further submits that she
submitted a representation to the third and second respondents on 12.03.2015,
seeking the reckoning of her deceased husband’s entire period of service for
pensionary purposes. As the said representation was not considered, she
approached this Court by filing G. Russel v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD)
No.6591 of 2015 . By order dated 20.03.2019, this Court disposed of the writ
petition, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
12.03.2015 and pass appropriate orders on the same lines as the observations
made in the order passed by this Court in C. Chellam v. The Principal
Accountant General (A&E) W.P.(MD) No.12776 of 2012, dated
25.03.2014.
2(iv). The petitioner states that, pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, she submitted a representation to the respondents, enclosing a
copy of the order and requesting them to extend the benefit thereof to her
deceased husband. However, the second respondent, by proceedings in
Na.Ka.Aa2/47522/2018, dated 16.12.2019, rejected her claim, relying upon a
judgment of this Court which declined to reckon the part-time service of
Village Assistants for the purpose of refixation of pension, with reference to
Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The petitioner contends
that the second respondent erred in treating her deceased husband’s service as
part-time service without properly considering the nature of his initial
appointment and the terms of the appointment proceedings dated 03.12.1985.
She submits that his initial appointment was temporary and that the
subsequent regularisation of his service with effect from 01.06.1995 cannot,
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
by itself, justify the exclusion of the earlier period of service from the
computation of qualifying service for pensionary purposes.
2(v). In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks to set aside
the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2019 passed by the second respondent
and to direct the respondents to refix her deceased husband’s pension by
reckoning his entire period of service from 04.12.1985 to 31.03.2009 and to
grant the consequential pensionary benefits.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner’s deceased husband, S. Bagavathi Perumal, was
initially appointed as a part-time Village Assistant, known as “Talayari”, and
continued to render service in that capacity prior to 01.06.1995. He was
brought into full-time service in the post of Village Assistant with effect from
01.06.1995, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated
06.07.1995. He retired from service on 31.03.2009, on attaining the age of
superannuation. It is contended that the service rendered by the deceased
employee prior to 01.06.1995 was part-time service in a non-pensionable
establishment and, therefore, cannot be taken into account for calculating his
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
.
qualifying service for pensionary purposes The learned counsel would further
submit that, during the period prior to 01.06.1995, the service of the deceased
employee was governed by the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules,
1980, notified in G.O.Ms.No.141, Revenue Department, dated 21.01.1981.
Rule 16(2) of the said Rules specifically provides that the posts are non-
pensionable. Further, Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct
Rules, 1983, provides that Village Servants, being part-time Government
servants, may take up part-time work or occupation. It is, therefore,
contended that the nature of the deceased employee’s employment prior to
01.06.1995 was part-time employment and that the said period cannot be
treated as pensionable service.
4. It is the further contention of the respondents that the
Government, by G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995,
brought part-time Village Assistants into full-time service with a special time
scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.9,
Revenue Department, dated 28.02.2006, the Government introduced the
Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995. Rule 4(a) of the said
Rules provides as follows:
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
“In computing the length of service for calculation of
pension and gratuity temporary, officiating and permanent (full
time) service shall be reckoned as qualifying service.”
5. According to the respondents, the aforesaid provision permits
temporary, officiating and permanent full-time service to be reckoned as
qualifying service. Since the petitioner was brought into full-time service
only with effect from 01.06.1995, the respondents contend that his qualifying
service has been correctly calculated from the said date and that the pension
sanctioned by the Accountant General is in accordance with the applicable
Rules. The learned counsel would next submit that the petitioner's claim for
counting the service rendered prior to 01.06.1995 is also contrary to Rules
11(2), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. In this regard,
it is contended that Rule 11(2) permits half of the service paid from
contingencies to be counted towards qualifying service only where the
employment involves whole-time service and not employment for a portion of
the day. Rule 11(3) provides for counting half of the service rendered under a
non-pensionable establishment along with regular service under a
pensionable establishment, subject to the following conditions:
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
“(a) service under non-pensionable establishment shall be in a
job involving whole time employment
(b) Service under non-pensionable establishment shall be on
time scale of pay and
(c) Service under non-pensionable establishment shall be
continuous and followed by absorption in pensionable
establishment without a break.”
6. The respondents further rely upon Rule 11(4), which deals
with service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised
service, on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages, on or after
01.04.2003. The said provision prescribes conditions relating to whole-time
employment, payment on a monthly basis and subsequent absorption into
regular service before 01.04.2003 without a break. It is therefore the specific
case of the respondents that the petitioner, having rendered only part-time
service prior to 01.06.1995, is not entitled to have any portion of that service
counted towards qualifying service under the aforesaid provisions. The
learned counsel would further submit that the issue relating to the counting of
part-time service rendered by Village Assistants for pensionary benefits has
already been considered by this Court.
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
7. The learned counsel would further rely upon the judgment in
State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Balachandran, W.A.(MD) No.1629 of 2018 , by
order dated 26.02.2021, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal
filed by the Government and set aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are as follows:
“What the respondents (Thalayaries) seek is a relief contrary to
their regularization order, by which they were brought under the
regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1995 and the Rules
framed there under. Therefore, they cannot approbate and reprobate
and it is only on their request, part time service was converted into full
time service prospectively creating the status of regular post with
regular time scale of pay
20. Much reliance has been made to Rule 11(a) read with Rule 2(0) of
the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. These Rules are not applicable
to the services of Thalayaries, being in non-pensionable establishment
and part time and that too not in a cadre post. As per Rule 11(4), there
must be whole time employment. Similarly, there shall not be any
break, which is in existence so far as the other set of employees are
concerned, viz. Village Officers (Karnam) we may appropriately quote
Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980. Even
as per Rule 16 of the said Rules, the post of Talayari being non-
pensionable, they are not entitled.
21. We are quite convinced with the entitlement of the respondents in
the light of the discussions made.
26. Having considered the entire issues involved, we also find that
11/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
there is no application of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India by
comparing the respondents with those who got the relief albeit without
taking note of the relevant provisions of law. Granting the relief would
amount to setting aside two pension Rules without even a challenge
especially when the respondents got the benefit of regular employment
and permanent posts under the subsequent orders passed on their
request.
27.In the result, the appeals filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu
stand allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge and consequently, the appeal filed by the Writ petitioner in W.A.
(MD) 831 of 2020 stands dismissed."
8 . The Division Bench also observed that granting the relief
would amount to setting aside the pension rules without a challenge to the
same, particularly when the employees had obtained the benefit of regular
employment and permanent posts under subsequent orders passed at their
request. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Government were allowed and
the writ appeal filed by the employee was dismissed. It is further submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 12.08.2022, dismissed SLP
Nos.10506–10522 of 2021 and SLP Nos.763–766 of 2022, which challenged
the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
“We therefore see no reason to entertain these petitions which are
accordingly dismissed.”
9. The respondents would therefore contend that the petitioner’s claim
is covered by the aforesaid decisions and that the service rendered by him as a part-
time Village Assistant prior to 01.06.1995 cannot be counted towards pensionary
benefits. The learned counsel would further rely upon the orders passed by this
Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.6484, 6485 and 6486 of 2017, dated 14.12.2021, concerning
the claim of part-time Panchayat Clerks for counting 50% of their past service
towards pensionary benefits. In the said decision, this Court considered G.O.Ms.No.
39, dated 13.06.2011, and G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, and held that,
notwithstanding the striking down of paragraph 4(b) of G.O.Ms.No.77, Rule 11(4)
of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules continued to remain in force. The relevant portion
reads as follows:
“6. The said G.O. Ms No. 39. dated 13.06.2011 it was held that on
employee working in Panchayat as Full Time Clerk or Part Time
Clerk and having been absorbed by the Government prior to
01.04.2003, will be entitled for counting 50% of service as part time
employee under the consolidated poy for the purpose of computation
of pensionary benefits. This G.O. is against Rule 11 (a) and therefore,
the Government has issued another G.O.Ms.77. dated 12.07.2013,
stating that the full time service alone can be considered for
calculation of pensionary benefits. But these two G.Os, were put to
13/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
challenge before this Court and this Court has passed an order
holding that para 4(b) in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013 is struck
down. The said paragraph 4(b) states if it is part time the same shall
not be taken into account for calculating the pensionable service. This
Court is of the considered view that even though the paragraph 4(b) is
struck down, the Rule 11 (4) is still in force and the same is still
holding the field. Moreover, the Rule will prevail over the G.O.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the service
rendered from 16.11.1979 to 31.12.1990 cannot be taken into
account."
10. The learned counsel would further rely upon the decision of this
Court in M. Kumaresan v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.21068 of 2015, dated
14.07.2015 , wherein the claim of a part-time Panchayat Clerk for counting past
service towards pension was considered. This Court held as follows:
“15. While the Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
seek to count half of the service rendered on whole time employment in
Government departments with regular service for pension, whatever
be the nomenclature of such service before regular service, the Rules
do not confer any benefit of counting of half of service rendered on
part time basis along with regular service.
That is, if a part time employee in Government Department has
become regular employee, the Rules do not provide the benefit of
counting any portion of the service rendered in part time basis along
with regular service for the purpose of pension”
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
11. The learned counsel would also rely upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Singaravelan and Others v. District Collector,
Tiruppur , Civil Appeal No.9533 of 2019 , dated 18.12.2019, concerning the
principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant
observation reads as follows:
“ In this respect, we find that the High Court in the impugned
Judgment was correct in concluding that the Appellants cannot claim
such relief on the strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
when once it has been found that they are not lawfully entitled to the
same. It is well-settled by now that a person cannot invoke Article 14
to claim a benefit extended to someone similarly placed if he is not
lawfully entitled to such benefit in the first place. Article 14 embodies
the concept of positive equality alone, and not negative equality, that
is to say, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality or
irregularity. In fact, this Court has opined that this principle extends
to orders passed by judicial fora as well. Thus, the jurisdiction of a
higher court cannot be invoked on the basis of a wrong order passed
by a lower forum. In this respect, it would be fruitful to refer to the
following passage from the decision of this Court in Basawaraj v.
Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81”.
12. The respondents would therefore contend that the petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of counting his part-time service merely on the
ground that similar benefits may have been extended to other employees,
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
when such benefit is not permissible under the applicable Rules. It is further
submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.(MD) Nos.
1631, 1632 and 1642 of 2021 , disposed of on 30.11.2023, considered a
similar claim made by part-time Village Assistants. The relevant observations
are as follows:
“12. Therefore, the factual matrix regarding the nature of
employment of the private respondents in these Writ Appeals are not in
dispute and even as per the Service Rules, they were appointed as Part Time
employees and that being the factum, the judgment of the Division Bench in
the case E.Balachandran (supra) would squarely apply and thus, these Writ
Appeals are to be considered,”
13. The Division Bench further observed that the judgment in
District Collector v. K. Raman Nair would not assist the employees, as the
issue had been considered in E. Balachandran’s case, which referred to the
Hon’ble Full Bench decision in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R.
Kaliyamoorthy, reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 . Ultimately, the Division
Bench set aside the common order dated 10.02.2020 passed in the writ
petitions referred to therein and allowed the writ appeals. It is further
submitted that, in the case of G. Venkatachalam Vs. State of Tamilnadu in
W.P.(MD) No.24041 of 2017 , by order dated 02.09.2024, this Court rejected
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
the claim for counting 50% of the service rendered by the petitioner therein as
Village Karnam from 18.05.1968 to 14.11.1980, relying upon the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Vargeese v. The State of Tamil Nadu , SLP
(Civil) Diary No.15406 of 2021. According to the respondents, the said
decision reiterates that the service rendered prior to regularisation cannot be
added to regular service, as the qualifying service is reckoned from the date
of regularisation. The respondents would, therefore, contend that 01.06.1995
has been prescribed as the cut-off date for reckoning qualifying service and
that the petitioner’s pension has been calculated in accordance with the
applicable Rules. The respondents would further submit that the service
rendered by the deceased employee prior to 01.06.1995 cannot be taken into
account for calculating pensionary benefits and that the request made by the
petitioner for refixation of her deceased husband’s pension was rightly
rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2019.
14. I have perused the materials on record and considered the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side. The question that
arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to count his part-
time service prior to 01.06.1995 for the purpose of calculating pensionary
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
benefits. In order to decide whether the appointment was part-time or
temporary, the appointment order of the petitioner is extracted hereunder:
“ Njhthis tl;lk; Njhthis fpuhkj;jpy; fhypahf ,Uf;Fk;
fpuhkg; gzpahsh; fhypaplj;jpy; nrz;gfuhkd;GJ}h; fpuhkk; thf;F
GJf; fhyzpapy; trpf;Fk; jpU.A.rz;Kfk; kfd; jpU.
v];.gftjpg;ngUkhs; vd;gth; fpuhk;g gzpahsuhf epakpf;fg;gLfpwhh;.
mth; cldbahfg; gzpNaw;f Ntz;Lk; . ”
(Emphasis Supplied).
On perusal of the appointment order, the nature of the petitioner’s initial
appointment cannot be ascertained. However, on perusal of the Service Book
of the deceased employee, S. Bagavathi Perumal, it is evident that his
appointment was temporary, as it is recorded as “ jw;fhypfk; ” .
15. As can be seen from the Service Book, the deceased
employee’s appointment was temporary. The Tamil Nadu Village Servants
Service Rules, 1980, came into force on 21.01.1981. The appointment of the
deceased employee, therefore, came to be governed by the said Rules. The
appointees covered under the said Rules were brought into full-time service
with a special time scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department,
dated 06.07.1995, with effect from 01.06.1995. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu
Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995, came into force, and Rule 4(a)
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
provided for computing the length of service for the calculation of pension
and gratuity. This issue has already been dealt with at length by the Hon’ble
Full Bench of this Court in A. Elangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in
2026 (3) CTC 1 , particularly in paragraphs 31 and 32. The reasons for
answering the reference have been assigned therein. Resultantly, the reference
was answered as follows:
“31. The findings recorded in Balachandran case has clearly laid
dow the correct law, more particularly appreciating the ratio with regard to
tl legal position that only such of the posts borne out of cadre alone are
entitle for pensionable benefit as has been enunciated in Kaliyamoorthy
case with reference to qualifying service and further holding that the
persons employ in the said posts alone are entitled to seek for counting 50%
of their service rendered in the said post prior to regularisation for the
purpose of pensiona benefit. However, the decisions in Velmayil and Chinna
Karuppaiah ca have not laid down the correct law as they have neither
adverted to the position of law relating to posts borne out of the cadre and
also with reference to the part-time employment of the Village Assistants an
therefore, the said decisions can only be said to be per incuriam as the
relevant provisions of the various Rules governing the conduct, service a
pension of Village Assistants have not been adverted to.
32. Further, as afore stated, the decision in Raman Nair case also would be
of no help in advancing the case of Village Assistants for counting 50 of the
service rendered prior to 1.6.1995 for the purpose of arriving at t total
service as, to a particular extent it supports the decision Balachandran
case. Furtherr, the said decision stands on an entire different set of facts,
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
which are specific to the said case and cannot be taken to be the factual
position that could be discerned with regard to the post of Village Assistants
enmasse, who were appointed on part-time basis prior to 1.6.1995. Further,
the Appeal against the decision in Raman Nair case before the Apex Court
in S.L.P.(CC) No.21683/2009 having left the legal issue open, the said
decision of the Apex Court would not in any manner tilt the balance against
the decision in Balachandran case to doubt the correctness of the said order
nor would the decision of the Apex Court in any manner enure to the benefit
of the case of the Village Assistants.
33. In fine, on the reasons aforesaid, this Court answers the reference in the
following terms:
"The persons, who were employed as Village Assistants/Talayaris
prior to 1.6.1995, the date on which the service of Village
Assistants/Talayaris were regularised, would not be entitled to count
50% of their service rendered in the pre-regularised period, viz.,
prior to 1.6.1995, for the purpose pensionary benefits, as the said
posts held by them were part-time posts and not posts borne out of
service or cadre."
16. In light of the authoritative pronouncement, the petitioner
cannot be treated differently, and hence, the petitioner has not made out a case
for interference. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in a recent
decision in C. Chellasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu , W.A. (MD)Nos.1047 to
1049 of 2019 , dated 11.08.2026, was seized of a similar issue and dismissed
the appeal by following the decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench in
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
A. Elangovan (referred supra). Furthermore, in G. Venkatachalam
(referred Supra), dated 02.09.2024 , a similar claim was rejected. The
petitioner in the present case is not distinguishable from the petitioner in the
aforesaid case, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the second respondent.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
16.10.2026
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
KSA
TO
1. The Secretary,
State Of Tamilnadu,
Revenue Department,
Saint George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. T he Tahsildar,
Thovalai Taluk,
Thovalai, Kanyakumari District.
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )

WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
KSA
Order in
WP(MD) NO. 2838 of 2021
16.10.2026
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:09:22 pm )