MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB. K vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 25.09.2026
Pronounced on 16 .10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
Case QR
{CNR: HCMD010077992021}
K. Mohameed Abdul Wahab Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Saint George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3. T he Tahsildar,
Thovalai Taluk,
Thovalai,
Kanyakumari District. Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr.C. Kishore
For Respondent(s): Mr. T. Cibi Chakraborthy,
Additional Government Pleader
1/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
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
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 petitioner's pension by considering
his entire period of service, i.e. from 10/11/1975 to 30/09/2007, or par with
various Judgments made by this Court and further direct the respondents to
sanction the petitioner's full pensionary benefits accordingly.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a
writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to 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
10.11.1975 to 30.09.2007.
2. The averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition are as follows:
2/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
2(i). The petitioner is a retired employee who served in the
Revenue Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and ultimately retired
as a Village Administrative Officer. It is his case that, by virtue of
proceedings vide A3.7821/75, he was temporarily appointed as a ‘Vetti’ in
Ananthapuram village, in the scale of pay fixed for ‘Vetti’ under the Tamil
Nadu pattern. He joined service on 10.11.1975 and thereafter served in
Arumanalloor, Boothapandy, Easanthimangalam and Cherumadam villages of
Kanyakumari District as a ‘Vetti’. After serving for 31 years and 9 months, he
retired from service on 30.09.2007, on attainment of superannuation.
2(ii). The present writ petition has been filed on the contention
that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the third respondent
seeking to have his service reckoned from 10.11.1975. However, the third
respondent returned the proposal, stating that, vide G.O.Ms.No.625, dated
06.07.1995, the petitioner's services had been regularised only with effect
from 01.06.1995 and that there was no basis for computing his service from
10.11.1975.
3/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
2(iii). It is further contention of the petitioner is that, unlike
other Village Officers or Talayari, as the nomenclature was applied in various
parts of the State, he was appointed as a ‘Vetti’, who was also a village
servant. His appointment was not on a part-time basis but on a temporary
basis. Therefore, according to him, G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995,
applies only to persons who were working as part-time Village Assistants or
part-time Village Officers. It is his further contention that, after his
retirement, he submitted a representation dated 12.03.2015. Though the
representation was acknowledged by the respondents, it was not considered.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6590 of 2015 (Mohammed Abdul
Wahab v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others) , seeking a direction to the
respondents to consider his representation and reckon his entire period of
service, namely, from 10.11.1975 to 30.09.2007, for the purpose of granting
full pensionary benefits.
3. This Court, by order dated 20.03.2019, directed the
respondents to consider the representation. Pursuant thereto, the
representation dated 12.03.2015 was considered, and an order dated
16.12.2019 was passed rejecting the petitioner's claim. It is the petitioner's
4/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
further case that, while rejecting his representation, the second respondent
relied upon a judgment of this Court in G. Selvaraj v. The State of Tamil
Nadu W.P. (MD) No. 17281 of 2014 dated 23.07.2019 holding that past
services could not be reckoned for pensionary benefits in the case of Village
Assistants, in view of Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The
rejection order further stated that persons similarly placed as the petitioner
had been regularised only pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.625, issued by the Revenue
Department on 06.07.1995, with effect from 01.06.1995. Therefore, their past
part-time service could not be taken into account for computing pensionary
benefits and the past services cannot be reckoned.
4. On the aforesaid factual basis, the petitioner contends that the
second respondent ought not to have rejected his claim, particularly when this
Court, in W.P.No.12776 of 2012 , dated 25.03.2014, had passed a similar
order in the case of C. Chellam v. The Principal Accountant General
(A&E). The petitioner seeks to distinguish his case by contending that,
although the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, came into
force subsequently, he had been appointed much earlier, i.e., on 10.11.1975.
Therefore, according to him, the subsequent Rules would not apply to his
5/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
case, and his service would be governed by the Rules that were in force on
the date of his appointment.
5. He further contends that the reliance placed by the second
respondent on Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules,
1980, is not sustainable, as the said provision was inserted only on
01.09.1984, vide G.O.No.1495, Revenue Department, long after his
appointment in 1975. He submits that the said Rules do not stipulate that the
appointments of Village Servants are on a part-time basis and that Rule 14,
which deals with the amount payable on retirement to Village Assistants
appointed on a part-time basis, cannot be applied to him, as he was initially
appointed on a temporary basis with a scale of pay. It is also his case that he
and other similarly placed persons were appointed on a temporary basis, in a
specified scale of pay, in the newly bifurcated villages of Kanyakumari
District, pursuant to the formation of 17 new villages vide G.O.Ms.No.1914,
dated 19.04.1973. He submits that the appointment orders did not stipulate
that their appointments were on a part-time basis.
6/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
6. He further contends that G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue
Department, dated 06.07.1995, cannot be relied upon to treat his service as
regularised only with effect from 01.06.1995. Placing reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the District Collector and Another v. K.Raman
Nair W.A.(MD) No.16 of 2009 , dated 16.02.2009, he submits that the
Hon’ble Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the
Government, clarified that the said Government Order applies only to persons
initially appointed as part-time Village Assistants and subsequently appointed
on a full-time basis in a time scale of pay, and not to persons, such as the
petitioner, who were initially appointed on a temporary basis in a time scale
of pay. He further submits that such temporary appointees cannot be denied
pensionary benefits by relying upon the said Government Order. Accordingly,
he contends that the rejection of his request to reckon his past services from
1975 is unsustainable and seeks to have the impugned order set aside.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
took this Court through the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980.
He submitted that the Rules came into force on 21.01.1981, applied to the
entire State of Tamil Nadu and governed village servants appointed under the
7/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
various enactments referred to in Rule 1(3) and (4) thereof, which read as
follows:
“(3) They extend to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.
(4) They shall apply to all Village Servants:-
(i) appointed on or after the coming into force of these rules;
(ii) appointed under the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service
Act, 1894 (Madras Act 2 of 1894) of the Madras Hereditary Village Officers
Act, 1895 (Madras Act 3 of 1895) and who continue to hold office by virtue
of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Proprietary Estates Village
Service and the Tamil Nadu Hereditary Village Officers (Repeal) Act, 1963
(Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1968) or under
(iii) the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under the Board's
Standing Orders) Service Rules, 1978; and
(iv) under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 on
the date of coming into force of these rules.”
8. He also referred to Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules, 1980, which
defines “Village Servants” as follows:-
“a) In these rules "Village Servant" means any person appointed as
Talayari ( jiyahhp ) Vetti ( ntl;b ) or Nirganti ( eph;fhe;jp ) ”
9.
The learned counsel submitted that, since the petitioner had
been appointed before the 1980 Rules came into force, the said Rules would
not apply to him. He thereafter referred to the Tamil Nadu Village Officers
Service Rules, 1970, and submitted that those Rules did not apply to the
entire State of Tamil Nadu. An exception had been made in respect of
8/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
Kanyakumari District, Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District and the City of
Madras. He further submitted that the relevant service rules identified
Talayari, ‘Vetti’ and Nirganti as categories of village servants. The relevant
extracts of the said Rules are reproduced below:
“ 1. (1) These rules may be called the Tamil Nadu Village Officers
Service Rules, 1970.
(2) They extend to the whole 'o' the State of Tamil Nadu except-
(i) The Kanyakumari District and the Shencottah Taluk of
the Tirunelveli District; and
(ii) the City of Madras
(3) They shall apply to all appointments made after the publication
of these rules in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.
2. Constitution - The service shall consist of the following categories of
officers namely :-
Category 1 - Village Headman, Additional Village Headman.
Category 2 Village Karnam, Additional Village Karnam
Category 3 – Talayari, ‘Vetti’, Nirganti” ( emphasis Supplied)
10. The learned counsel submitted that it was necessary to
examine the historical background of the appointments of village Karnams,
Village Officers and village servants to appreciate the distinction sought to be
drawn in the petitioner's case. According to him, Kanyakumari District and
Sengottai Taluk comprised several villages that had formed part of the
erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. Upon the reorganisation of States under
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, certain villages were incorporated into
9/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
the State of Tamil Nadu and placed within Kanyakumari District and
Sengottai Taluk. That, according to the learned counsel, was the reason why
the 1970 Rules were not made applicable to those areas. The Rules were also
not made applicable to the City of Madras. He further therefore submitted
that the petitioner's appointment order dated 8.11.1975 clearly demonstrated
the nature of his appointment. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows:
“Under the provisions contained in G.O. Press No.3597,
Revenue, dated 20.11.1970, the following persons selected for
appointment as ‘Vetti’s in Thovalai and Ananthapuram villages, in the
place of the existing vacancies of village men, as shown in the
statement appended below: The appointment made in this order is
purely temporary, and they will be paid at the scale of pay fixed for
‘Vetti’ under Tamil Nadu pattern.
They should take their bona fide residence in their respective
villages. The individuals should join duty in the respective villages
forthwith.”
11. The learned counsel submitted that, although the appointment
order described the appointments as purely temporary, the nature of the
appointments in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk was materially
different from that of the part-time appointments made in other parts of Tamil
Nadu. According to him, while the village servants in other districts were
10/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
appointed on a part-time basis, the appointments in these areas were
temporary appointments carrying a specified scale of pay. He further
emphasised that the appointment order expressly provided for payment in the
scale of pay fixed for ‘Vetti’ under the Tamil Nadu pattern. The learned
counsel therefore contended that neither the 1970 Rules nor the 1980 Rules
governed the petitioner's appointment when it was made in 1975.
Consequently, the respondents ought to have examined the Rules that were
applicable to the petitioner before the 1970 Rules came into force. Rule 1(4)
of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, reads as follows:
“ 1. Short title, commencement extent and application. (1) These rules may
he called THE TAMIL NADU VILLAGE SERVANTS SERVICE RULES,
1980.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette.
(3) They extend to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.
(4) They shall apply to all Village Servants :-
(i) appointed on or after the coming into force of these rules;
(ii) appointed under the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service
Act, 1894 (Madras Act 2 of 1894) of the Madras Hereditary Village
Officers Act, 1895 (Madras Act 3 of 1895) and who continue to hold
office by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu
Proprietary Estates Village Service and the Tamil Nadu Hereditary
Village Officers (Repeal) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1968) or
under
(iii) the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (Appointed under the Board's
Standing Orders) Service Rules, 1978; and
(iv) under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 on
the date of coming into force of these rules.” (emphasis supplied)
11/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
12. The learned counsel submitted that, before the reorganisation of
States, the posts in question in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk
were full-time posts and not part-time posts. Therefore, a distinction ought to
be drawn when applying G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995, which took
effect from 01.06.1995. The learned counsel then relied upon the judgment
of this Court in K. Raman Nair v. The District Collector, Nagercoil and
State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.1716 of 2005 dated 24.08.2007, in which this
Court had directed that the period of service of the petitioner therein be
reckoned from 21.07.1975. He submitted that the petitioner in that case,
namely, K. Raman Nair, had also been appointed in Kanyakumari District in
circumstances similar to those of the present petitioner. His services had been
reckoned from the date of his appointment notwithstanding G.O.Ms.No.625,
dated 06.07.1995. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“3. From the materials available on record, which do not
appear to be disputed, it is apparent that the petitioner was
appointed by order dated 21.07.1975 as Thalayari'. Such
appointment was on a temporary basis. However, by order dated
06.07.1995 the petitioner's services were regularised. Subsequently
he retired from service on 30.11.2000. The authorities have not
sanctioned pension to him on the ground that he had not completed
10 years of service after 06.07.1995, the date on which the services
of the petitioner were regularised.
12/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited In my attention
to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules as contained in
Chapter-III. The counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in 7.?.??5.15258 and 15468 of
2006, decided on 18.07.2007. the said decision, the learned Single
Judge, applying the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, has held that the past services, even in a
temporary capacity, is required to be taken into consideration.
5. Having regard to the provisions contained insuch Rules
as well as the ratio of the decision in W.P.NOS.15258 and 15468 of
2006, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to
pension. Euch pension should be paid taking into account his
entire period of service i.s. with effect from 21.07.1975. The entire
pension should be calculated and the arrears of pension payable
till the end of August, 2007 should be paid by the end of December,
2007 and the pension payable for the month of September shall be
paid during the first week of October and pension for the
subsequent periods shall be paid regularly.
6.The writ petition is allowed as per the directions
contained in the order. No costs.”
13. The learned counsel also referred to the subsequent
proceedings in the case of District Collector v. K. Raman Nair , W.A.No.16
of 2009 , dated 16.02.2009. He submitted that the appointment order of K.
Raman Nair, dated 21.07.1975, similarly described his appointment as
temporary and provided for payment in the scale of pay fixed for Talayari
13/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
under the Tamil Nadu pattern. He further submitted that the decision in K.
Raman Nair's case was implemented and that the Special Leave Petition filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, SLP No.21683 of 2009, was also
dismissed. Consequently, the services of K. Raman Nair were reckoned from
21.07.1975 for pensionary purposes. The relevant extracts from the judgment
in W.A.No.16 of 2009 are reproduced below:
5. The following facts emerge from the record and for that,
“
we are not able to appreciate the arguments made on behalf of the
State. G.O.Ms.No.1914, dated 19th April, 1973, relied on behalf of
the appellants, relates to bifurcation of villages and appointment of
additional staff, proposals of which were approved, and the
notification attached to the same is applicable to those who were in
service as on 19th April, 1973, and not to the employees appointed
subsequently. The question whether the nature of appointment, is
part-time with honorarium or temporary in a scale of pay, not only
depends upon the Rules and guidelines but also depends upon the
letter of appointment issued in favour of the employee concerned.
6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed
on 21st July, 1975. The said appointment was on temporary basis, in
a scale of pay, as evident from the letter of appointment as quoted
hereunder:
“PROCEEDINGS OF THE TAHSILDAR, KALKULAM
Thiru. A. Madhavan.
A2/1873/6775/12 Dated: 21-7-1975
Sub: Village Establishment —Kalkulam Taluk
Appointment of Thalayari- Order Issued.
14/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.1914, Revenue, dated 19.04.1973.
2. Collector's G1/40516/72, dated 03.07.1975.
---------
The following candidates are temporarily appointed as
Thalayaris in the bifurcated villages. They should join duty
forthwith in the new villages. They will be paid at the scale of
pay fixed for the Thalayari under the Tamil Nadu pattern.
For Tahsildar.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The persons who were appointed as per the proceedings
dated 21st July, 1975, cannot be guided pursuant to the order of
regularisation, contained in G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department,
dated 6th July, 1995. Even the said Government Order says that the
services of persons appointed as part -time village Assistants and
regularised in the time scale of pay of Rs.600-10-750. If, the petitioner
was appointed on 21st July, 1975, along with others on temporary
basis in the scale of pay for Village Assistants. The respondents cannot
deny pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner and others who were
appointed along with him, by giving reference to G.O.Ms.No.625,
Revenue Department, dated 6th July, 1995, as payment of pension is
guided by statutory Rules. Therefore, the said G.O.Ms.No.625,
Revenue Department, dated 6th July, 1995, is applicable to those who
were initially appointed as part-time Village Assistants and
subsequently given full-time appointment by providing a scale of pay to
the post of Village Assistants at Rs.600-10-750, and not to those, like
the petitioner, who were already temporary Village Assistants in the
regular scale of pay.
8. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, to which
reference has been made by the learned Single Judge, relates to
15/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
commencement of qualifying service for payment of pension. The
relevant portion thereof is quoted hereunder:
“11. Commencement of qualifying service.—(1) Subject to
the provisions of these Rules, qualifying service of a
Government servant shall commence from the date he
takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed,
either substantively or in an officiating or temporary
capacity. In the case of a Government servant who is
appointed on or after the 1st October, 1969, temporary or
officiating service rendered in a pensionable post,
followed by confirmation, shall count in full as qualifying
service even if it is not followed by regular appointment in
a substantive capacity.”
It will be evident from the above Rule that for
payment of pension, temporary service is also liable to be
counted for commencement of qualifying service.
9. So far as the Village Assistants are concerned, they are
guided by Special Rules known as the Tamil Nadu Village
Assistants Pension Rules, 1996, which deal with pension and
gratuity. The relevant portions of Chapter II of the said Rules are
quoted hereunder:
“ CHAPTER I — GENERAL
(1) These Rules shall be called the Tamil Nadu Village
Assistants Pension Rules, 1996.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on [date to
be verified].
(3) These Rules shall apply to the Village Assistants
employed in the Revenue Department.
CHAPTER II — PENSION AND GRATUITY
(1) The age of retirement shall be 60 years.
(4) 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.
(b) If there are breaks in service on account of any
reason, such breaks shall not have the effect of forfeiting the
16/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
past service, provided the Village Assistants were discharged
or retired as per Rules and orders.
(c) Leave without pay, suspension allowed as a specific
penalty, overstayal of joining time or leave not subsequently
regularised, and periods of breaks shall not be reckoned as
qualifying service.
(7)(1) A Village Assistant shall be eligible for pension if
he has rendered a total qualifying service of 10 years or more
and was discharged or retired as per Rules and orders.
Pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments
drawn in the last 10 months before retirement for qualifying
service of 66 half-years, and proportionate pension shall be
paid for a qualifying service of less than 66 half-years, subject
to a minimum of Rs.990/-.”
10. From the aforesaid Special Rules pertaining to Village
Assistants, it would be evident that not only permanent (full-time)
service is to be counted for reckoning the period of service as
qualifying service, but temporary (full-time) or officiating (full-
time) service shall also be counted for reckoning the period of
qualifying service.
11. The writ petitioner (respondent herein), having
completed more than 10 years of service on a temporary basis,
st
since 21 July 1975, the entire period of service has to be counted
for the purpose of granting pension, both as per the Special Rules
and the General Rules, more particularly Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978.
12. In view of our above findings, we uphold the order
passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. We
make it clear that the respondents should pay the amount in favour
of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) within one month from
today, if not yet paid, failing which they shall be liable to pay 12%
17/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
interest per annum from the date of the writ petitioner's
entitlement.”
1. The learned counsel then referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. E.
Balachandran, reported in 2021 (3) MLJ 92, the
relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“22. Therefore, in view of the law laid down as aforesaid, we have
no hesitation in holding that the appeals filed by the State are liable
to be allowed. There is one more difficulty we may face, This is,
with respect to catena of decisions available without taking note of
the relevant provisions. Even this issue has been answered by the
Full Bench of this Court referred to above, by holding that an issue
which is not considered consciously leading to a decision may not
be a binding precedent. Thus, illegality cannot be allowed to
perpetuate.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners
made reliance upon the decision rendered in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.
1254 and 1255 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019 in the matter of the State
of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue v.
Chinna Karuppaiah. We are afraid that the said decision will not
enable the respondents from getting the relief. As aforesaid, the
relevant Rules were not brought to the notice of the Court and Rule
16 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, speaks
about the status of the erstwhile Village Assistants and Village
Officers such as Talaiyari and Karnams. Insofar as Talaiyaris are
concerned, the part-time posts were sought to be abolished by fixing
fixed compensation for the said work done and thereafter, a
18/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
concession was given by bringing them under regular time scale of
pay. The Government Orders concerned, which we discussed,
followed by the Rules framed for the aforesaid purpose was not
brought to the notice of the Court. We may note at the cost of
repetition, but for the Government Order passed on 06.07.1995, the
respondents Talaiyaris would have continued to have the status of
part-time employees only. Therefore, it is not open to them to
consider even from the inception that they were full-time employees,
when there was no regular full-time scale of pay on a cadre basis.
24. The reliance made on the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service
Rules also is not correct, since it is to be applied prospectively for
the new appointments. Therefore, there is no question of deemed
permanent status contrary to the Rules and in any case, the
respondents cannot approbate and reprobate.”
14. He submitted that, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division
Bench had held that the relevant Rules would operate prospectively.
According to him, the judgment dealt with Village Officers, including
Karnams, and their status as part-time officers. He further submitted that the
judgment distinguished between Village Karnams and Additional Village
Karnams. The learned counsel contended that, although the judgment dealt
with the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules to Talayari, it did not
consider the specific issue concerning ‘Vetti’ and Nirganti appointed in
Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk. He therefore submitted that the
19/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
said judgment could not be applied to the petitioner's case without examining
the distinction raised by him. The learned counsel also relied upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in A. Elangovan v. State of
Tamil Nadu , reported in 2026 (3) CTC 1 , dated 06.04.2026, and referred to
the question of law considered therein and the findings rendered by the
Hon’ble Full Bench. The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted
below:
“ 2. Before detailing the reasons which prevailed upon the learned sing
Judge to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, the point of reference, as
has bee formulated and placed before this Court for an authoritative
answer, is a under:
"Whether the 50% service rendered by the Petitioner as part time
Village Assistant has to be taken into account along with the regular
service period to determine the pensionary benefits or not, as per the
Judgment dated 8.1.2010 of the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.
21683/2009.
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
entitl for pensionable benefit as has been enunciated in Kaliyamoorthy
case wi 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 servi 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
20/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
have neither adverted to t position of law relating to posts borne out of
the cadre and also wi reference to the part-time employment of the
Village Assistants an therefore, the said decisions can only be said to
be per incuriam as ti relevant provisions of the various Rules
governing the conduct, service al pension of Village Assistants have not
been adverted to.
32. Further, as afore stated, the decision in Raman Nair case also wou
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 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 ensure 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."
21/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
34. Though this Court is only required to answer the reference and
send the matter back to the learned Single Judge for further hearing, in
view of the fact that the learned Counsel for the parties have made
their submissions not only on the merits of the case, but also on the
basis of the facts in the present Writ Petition and have no objection to
this Bench deciding the case, this Court would proceed to analyse the
facts of the present case to find out whether the Petitioner is entitled
for seeking the said benefit by applying the ratio laid down above.
35. A perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly,
the communication addressed by the Petitioner to the Respondents
seeking to count the period of service rendered by the Petitioner as
Village Assistant prior to 1.6.1995, it clearly shows that the Petitioner
himself has admitted that he was a part-time Village Assistant, as is
evident from the subject of the communication. When the fact that the
Petitioner was a part-time Village Assistant has been admitted by the
Petitioner himself and the Petitioner has admitted that he was neither
occupying the post of Village Assistant temporarily nor in an
officiating capacity nor in a permanent capacity, which post is borne
out of a cadre and, therefore, applying the answer to t reference, it can
safely be concluded that the Petitioner is not entitled to have 50% of
his service, rendered prior to 1.6.1995, counted for the purpose
calculating the pensionary benefits. Therefore, the relief sought for by
Petitioner cannot be granted and necessarily this Writ Petition
deserves to dismissed.
36. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to Costs.”
22/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
15. He would submit that the reference before the Hon’ble Full
Bench concerned the question of reckoning the past service rendered by
Village Assistants/Talayari prior to their regularisation pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. He would contend
that the Hon’ble Full Bench considered the issue only in the context of
persons who had been appointed as part-time Village Assistants and that the
case of persons like the petitioner, who were appointed as full-time
employees on a time scale of pay, was not considered. He would therefore
submit that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and that the reliance
placed by the respondents, as well as in the impugned order, upon the
aforesaid Full Bench decision to reject the petitioner’s claim is misplaced.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that neither the earlier Division Bench nor the Hon’ble Full Bench
considered the cases of appointees from the erstwhile Kanyakumari District
and Sengottai Taluk, who do not fall within the category of part-time workers.
He would therefore contend that G.O.Ms.No.625 would not apply to the
petitioner, as his appointment was made as early as 10.11.1975, under the
then applicable rules, as a temporary employee on a time scale of pay. He
23/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
would submit that the petitioner was already a full-time employee and that the
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.625 was not required to be extended to him. According
to him, the petitioner’s case is covered by the judgments rendered in the case
of K. Raman Nair (referred Supra). He therefore contended that neither the
earlier Division Bench decisions nor the Full Bench decision had specifically
considered the case of persons appointed on a temporary basis in a specified
scale of pay in Kanyakumari District prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.625,
Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995, or before the Tamil Nadu Village
Servants Service Rules, 1980, came into force on 21.01.1981.
2. The learned counsel would further refer to the judgment of this Court
in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy ,
reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 , and drew the attention of this Court to
the questions referred for consideration, as set out in the following
paragraphs of the judgment:
“1. This Full Bench was constituted by the Honourable The Chief Justice
pursuant to the Order, dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.1218 of 2018, etc., batch to refer the below mentioned
issue for an authoritative pronouncement:
"In view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, as
amended, if a Government servant is regularised in service after
1.4.2003 whether such a person will be entitled to count 50% of the
past service rendered prior to regularisation for the purpose of
computing his Pension under the old Pension scheme."
2. For the sake of clarity, we are paraphrasing the above reference as
follows:
24/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
"Whether half of the past service rendered by Government servants
whose appointments were regularised after 1.4.2003 can be counted
for the purpose of grant of Pension under the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in the light of the amendments to the
aforesaid Rules vide G.O.Ms. No.259, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 6.8.2003 and G.O.Ms. No.41, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 8.2.2010."
45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows:
(i) Those, who are freshly appointed on or after 1.4.2003 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 6.8.2003
(ii) Those Government servants/Employees appointed prior to
1.4.2003 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 1.4.2003, 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. 1.4.2003 and absorbed into Regular service after
1.4.2003 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 1.4.2003 but were absorbed in Regular
service after 1.4.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past
service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for
Pension."
25/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
17. He would submit that, applying the principles laid down therein,
Government servants appointed prior to 01.02.2003, whether on a temporary
or permanent basis, in terms of Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules, would be entitled to pension under the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. He would therefore contend that, since the
petitioner was appointed in the year 1975, his case is saved by the decision of
the aforesaid Hon’ble Full Bench, particularly paragraph 45(iii), and that his
past service is liable to be reckoned for pensionary benefits. The learned
counsel would thereafter refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in C. Chellaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.A.Nos.
1047 to 1049 of 2019 dated 11.08.2026, wherein the appeals were dismissed
on the ground that the issue stood covered by the judgment in A. Elangovan
(referred Supra) reported in 2026 (3) CTC 1. He would submit that the issue
was no longer confined to the appointments of the petitioners therein as
Talayari in the year 1975 on a temporary basis. He would reiterate that neither
the earlier Division Benches nor the Hon’ble Full Bench had considered the
specific case of persons appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.625,
dated 06.07.1995, and before the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules,
1980, came into force with effect from 21.01.1981.
26/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
18. The learned counsel would further submit that, in the
erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State, village officers were permanent
employees rendering full-time service. According to him, when the Tamil
Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970, were framed, the same were not
made applicable to Kanyakumari District, Shencottah Taluk and the City of
Madras, whereas they were made applicable to the other districts and taluks
of the State of Tamil Nadu. He would contend that, in the other districts and
taluks, the village headmen, village Karnams, Talayari, Vetti and Nirganti
were engaged as part-time workers, unlike the village officers in the aforesaid
areas, who were full-time employees. The learned counsel would also refer to
Sections 119 and 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and submit that,
if the State of Tamil Nadu intended to alter, modify or change any law in force
immediately before the appointed day, the same ought to have been done in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act. He would contend that, in the
absence of any such modification in the manner contemplated under the Act,
the law applicable to the petitioner on the date of his appointment would
continue to govern his service conditions. According to him, the petitioner
was appointed as a full-time employee, though on a temporary basis, and
would therefore be entitled to have his past service reckoned, applying the
27/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
principles laid down in paragraph 45(ii) of the judgment in R. Kaliyamoorthy
(referred supra).
19. To substantiate his contention regarding Sections 119 and
120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the learned counsel would rely
upon an early judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, as he then was, in the case of B.
Satyanarayanamurthi v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reported in 1957
SCC OnLine AP 38. He would draw the attention of this Court to paragraphs
15 and 16 of the said judgment and submit that, if the State of Tamil Nadu
intended to make any change to the law in force immediately before the
appointed day, such change ought to have been effected in accordance with
the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, within the period
contemplated therein. The relevant extracts of the judgement are as follows:
“ 15. Lastly, the learned counsel advanced an acceptable argument, which
should have been presented in the forefront. To appreciate this argument,
some relevant facts may be stated. The Telangana area, in which Hyderabad
city is situated, formed part of the State of Hyderabad till 1st November,
1956. Section 3 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, added the territories
comprised in the area popularly called Telangana to the Andhra State. The
writ now sought to be issued is against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
28/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
situated in the City of Hyderabad. Learned counsel contends that, though
Telangana area was integrated with the Andhra State from 1st November,
1956, the laws of the territory were preserved under the States'
Reorganisation Act till the competent Legislature made the necessary
adaptations and modifications of the laws within one year from the
appointed day and as no such adaptations have yet been made the
provisions of the Hyderabad Court-Fees Act would apply to proceedings
taken in the erstwhile Telangana area. To appreciate this contention, the
relevant provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, may be read:
“Section 119:— The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to
have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force
immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and
territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall until
otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent
authority, be construed as meaning the territories within the State
immediately before the appointed day”.
Section 120:— For the purpose of facilitating the application of any
law in relation to any of the States formed or territorially altered by
the provisions of Part II, the appropriate Government may, before
the expiration of one year from the appointed day, by order make
such adaptations and modifications of law, whether by way of repeal
or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient and thereupon
every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and
modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a
competent Legislature or other competent authority.
Section: 121: Power to construe laws:— Notwithstanding that no
provision or insufficient provision has been made under section 120
for the adaptations of a law made before the appointed day, any
Court, tribunal or authority required or empowered to enforce such
29/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
law may, for the purpose of facilitating its applications in relation to
any State formed or territorially altered by the provisions of Part II,
construe the law in such manner without affecting the substance, as
may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the Court,
tribunal or authority.”
16. Section 119 enacts that, for the purpose of the application of the laws,
there must be deemed to have been no change in the territories, though
Telangana is now a part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the laws of the
State of the Hyderabad will be in force in that area as if there was no
disintegration of that area of the State of Hyderabad and integration of the
same with the State of Andhra Pradesh. The laws in that area would
continue to prevail and govern the rights of parties till the competent
Legislature or other competent authority otherwise provides. Section 120
confers a power on the appropriate Governments before the expiration of
one year from the appointed day to make such adaptations and
modifications in law and the law with such adaptations and modifications
will prevail till the competent Legislature or authority amends the law. So,
too, if the appropriate Government exercises its powers and makes suitable
orders under section 120, and, if a lacuna is found in such orders, the
Courts, for the purpose of facilitating the application of the laws without
affecting the substance may, under section 121, construe the law in such
manner as is necessary to facilitate the application of the laws in relation to
the territory altered by the Act. In the instant case, no order making the
necessary adaptations and modifications was made under section 120 and,
therefore there is no scope for the Courts to construe the provisions of the
Act in this manner provided by section 121. The result is that the law
obtaining in the State of Hyderabad before the appointed day would still
govern the rights of parties in the Telangana area. The law of Court-fees
30/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
obtaining before that date in the State of Hyderabad is the Hyderabad
Court-Fees Act and, therefore the Hyderabad Court-fees Act governs the
proceedings arising out of that area. In the present case, the petitioner seeks
the aid of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus against a Tribunal
situated in the Hyderabad City. The Hyderabad Court-fees Act, which was
the law obtaining in the State of Hyderbad before the appointed day, would
apply to such a proceeding. If so, the Court-fee payable under Schedule II,
Serial No. 1(d) is Rs. 2 on a writ petition.”
20. The learned counsel would further rely upon the judgment of
this Court in C.K. Velayudhan Nair v. District Collector , W.P.No.5201 of
2007, dated 09.10.2009. The relevant extracts from the said judgment are
extracted hereinbelow:
“2. The following are the undisputed facts:
a) The present Kanyakumari District had been a part of the erstwhile
Travancore Cochin State, prior to the enactment of the State Reorganisation
Act, 1956. The village administration of erstwhile Travancore Cochin State
was manned by full-time regular village-level staff, such as Village Officer,
Village Assistant, Copyist and Village Men. Consequent on the
reorganisation of States, the Kanyakumari District got amalgamated with
the State of Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the village level staff of erstwhile
Travancore Cochin State employed in Kanyakumari District were absorbed
into the service of Tamil Nadu Government.
b) While the village level staff in Kanyakumari District were full time
employees, as stated above, the village administration war manned by part-
time hereditary Village Officers viz., Village Headmen (Munsif) and Village
Karnam in the rest of the parts of the State of Tamil Nadu.
c) In the year 1980, promulgated an Ordinance i.e. Tamil Nadu Ordinance
No.10 of 1980, to the Government of Tamil Nadu abolish the post of part-
time hereditary Village Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu. While part-time
31/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
Village Officers posts were abolished, a new system of full-time officers was
introduced. That is, Village Administrative Officers were appointed to man
village administration. The post of Village Administrative Officer was
brought within the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
through competitive examination.
d) While part-time Village Officers posts were abolished, Section 10 of the
Ordinance permitted the existing Village Assistants and Village Officers to
continue in Kanyakumari District as they were already full-time
Government employees.
c) The part-time Village Officers approached the Honourable While
Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Ordinance. upholding the
Ordinance, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu
Government to provide employment to the erstwhile part-time Village
Officers, who were sought to be terminated, the post of Village
Administrative Officers, if they were otherwise qualified to hold the post of
Village Administrative Officers. Screening Committees at State level and
District constituted to select eligible and qualified persons from among the
ex-part time Village Officers Administrative Officers. for appointment
Hence, the level were as Village
f) In Kanyakumari District also, part-time Village officers were appointed in
the vacancies that arose in the post of Village Assistants / Village Officers,
after the District came to be amalgamated with the State of Tamil Nadu.
There were 73 such part-time Village officers and 47 of them were
appointed as Village Administrative Officers, after the Screening Committee
cleared them.
g) In respect of 34 Villages, where the Travancore Cochin State pattern
Village Officers and Village Assistants were working, they were grouped
together at the ratio of 1:1 per village and were appointed to carry the
duties connected administration.
3.The petitioners were Village Assistants among those 986. They were
promoted as Village Officers from 5.11.1986 and 20.02.1985 respectively.
The Village Assistants and Village Officers were governed by the Service
Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, called the Tamil Nadu
Village (Transferred Territories) Service Rules, 1983 and that was given
retrospective effect from 01.11.1956. The Village Officers were not paid the
same salary as paid to the Village Administrative Officers. Therefore, they
32/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
were claiming parity with Village Administrative Officers. It is their case
that they were doing the same duties as carried out by the Village
Administrative Officers and that therefore, they are entitled to be paid the
same wages.”
21. He would submit that the said case also concerned village
officers and village assistants appointed in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin
State and employed in Kanyakumari District, who were subsequently
absorbed into the service of the Government of Tamil Nadu. He would draw
the attention of this Court to the factual findings therein, which indicate that
village administration in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State was manned
by full-time regular village-level staff, including village officers, village
assistants, peons and village men. He would further submit that the abolition
of part-time hereditary village officers under the relevant Tamil Nadu
enactment did not apply to the petitioners therein, who had been appointed as
full-time employees. He specifically refer to paragraph 3 of the aforesaid
judgment and submit that the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Recruitment,
Transfer and Territory Service Rules, 1973, were framed to govern persons
appointed under the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Government Orders.
However, the said Rules were given retrospective effect from 01.01.1956. He
would contend that such retrospective application was contrary to Sections
33/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
119 and 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and that the retrospective
date prescribed under the Rules could not, by itself, determine the law
applicable to the petitioner on the date of his appointment. In this regard, the
relevant extracts of Sections 119 and 120 of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, are reproduced below:
“ 119. Territorial extent of laws.
- The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected
any change in the territories to which any law in force
immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and
territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall,
until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other
competent authority. be construed as meaning the territories
within that State immediately before the appointed day.
120. Power to adapt laws.
- For the purpose'of facilitating the application ofany law in
relation to any of the States [or Union territories] [Inserted by 1
A.L.O., 1956 (1-11-1956)] formed or territorially altered by the
provisions of Part 11. the appropriate Government may. before
the expiration of one year from the appointed day, by order make
such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way
of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient. and
thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or
34/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
amended by a competent Legislature or other competent
authority.
Explanation. - In this section, the expression "appropriate
Government" means
(a) as respects any law relating to a matter enumerated in
the Union List, the Central Government; and
(b) as respects any other law
(i)in its application to a [] [the word and letter *
"Part A" were omitted by 1 A.L.O., 1956 (1-11-1956) ]
State, the State Government, and
(ii)in its application to a [Union territory]
[Substituted by 1 A.L.O., 1956 for the words "Part C
State" ] the Central Government.”
22. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. C.K.
Velayudhan Nair and K. Bhaskaran Nair , W.A. No. 301 of 2013, dated
28.02.2013 arising out of the order passed in C.K. Velayudhan Nair and K.
Bhaskaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.5201 of 2007 dated
09.10.2009, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed. He
would submit that, although the issue concerning promotion to the post of
Village Administrative Officer under G.O.Ms.No.933 was considered in the
35/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
said proceedings, the issue relating to the appointment of village officers in
Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk was also discussed. He would
therefore contend that, since the petitioner was appointed as a full-time
village officer in the year 1975, his past service ought to be reckoned from the
date of his appointment, unlike the cases of other village servants governed
by G.O.Ms.No.625.
23. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would, at the outset, submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of laches and delay. He would point out that the petitioner was
appointed on 10.11.1975 and that the Government had brought the part-time
village assistants under full-time employment pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.625,
dated 06.07.1995. The petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2007 but
approached this Court only in the year 2021. He would submit that the cause
of action, if any, had arisen as early as 06.07.1995, when G.O.Ms.No.625 was
issued. However, the petitioner approached this Court only in the year 2021,
after a considerable delay of nearly 26 years from the date of issuance of the
Government Order and about 14 years after his retirement in 2007. He would
therefore contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground
36/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
of delay and laches. He would further submit that the petitioner cannot revive
a stale claim by submitting a representation and thereafter approaching this
Court for its disposal. In this regard, he would rely upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining ,
reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115, wherein it was held that the submission of a
representation and a subsequent direction for its consideration would not
create a fresh cause of action in respect of a stale claim. The relevant extracts
of the judgment are as follows:
“ 7. Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on
merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or
barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without
examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to
the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not
concern the department or to inform the appropriate department.
Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking
relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.
8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the
representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter
on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to
disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim
or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such
an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of
37/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
`acknowledgment of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of
action.
24. He would also submit that the issue is no longer res integra
and further submit that the issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Full
Bench of this Court in A. Elangovan (referred Supra). The learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is attempting
to reopen an issue that has already been conclusively settled by this Court. He
would rely upon the subsequent decisions, including E. Balachandran
(supra) and C. Chellaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), and submit that
the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the principles laid down therein
and that no distinction can be drawn between the petitioner’s case and the
cases considered in the aforesaid judgments. The learned counsel would
further submit that G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995, covers all classes of
village officers and does not make any distinction based on the district or
taluk in which they served. He would draw the attention of this Court to the
following paragraphs of the said Government Order:
“2. Fotpd; ghpe;JiufSf;F chpa Kf;fpaj;Jtk; mspj;J muR
tphpthf Ma;T nra;jJ. Gfjp Neu fpuhk cjtpahsh;fis KO Neu
fpuhk cjtpahsh;fis KO Neu muR Copah;fshf khw;wp &.
38/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
600-10>750 vd;w Cjpak; eph;zak; nra;J muR MizapLfpwJ.
jw;NghJ eilKiwapy; cs;s tpjpfspd; fPo; toq;fg;gl;L tUk;
midj;J Cjpa mbg;gilapyhd gbfs;> mftpiyg;gb> tPl;L
thlifg;gb kw;Wk; kUj;Jtg;gb Nghd;wit ngWtjw;Fk; kw;Wk; muR
Copah;fs; ngWk; midj;J gad;fisAk; ( Benefits) ,th;fs; ngw
jFjp cilath;fs; Mthh;fs; vd;Wk; MizapLfpwJ.
3. NkNy gj;jp 2y; cs;s Mizfs; Kd; Njjpapl;L 1.6.95 Kjy;
eilKiwf;F nfhz;L tug;gLfpwJ vd;W muR NkYk;
MizapLfpwJ.
4. jw;NghJ khepyk; KOtJk; Rkhh; 28>000 fpuhk cjtpahsh;fs;
cs;sdh; vd fzf;fplg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,dp tUk; fhyq;fspy; tUtha;
fpuhkq;fspd; vz;zpf;ifia kdjpy; nfhz;L fpuhk cjtpahsh;fspd;
vz;zpf;ifia gbg;gbahf Fiwj;J> xU epiyapy; (,wg;G> gzp
Kjph;r;rp Nghd;w epiyfspy; Vw;gLk; gzpaplq;fis epug;ghky;
epiyahf;f Njitg;gLfpwJ . ”
25. He would contend that the Government was conscious of the
different nomenclatures used for village officers in various parts of the State
while issuing the Government Order. He would therefore submit that the
petitioner cannot claim exemption from its application merely on the ground
that he belonged to Kanyakumari District or that he was appointed under a
different nomenclature. The learned counsel would also submit that the Tamil
Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1980, came into force with effect from
21.01.1981, in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules,
1970. He would contend that the 1980 Rules were made applicable to the
39/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
relevant categories of village servants, including persons holding posts such
as Talayari, ‘Vetti’, Nirganti. Since the petitioner was appointed as a ‘Vetti’,
he would fall within the scope of the said Rules. He would further submit that
the petitioner cannot seek to rely upon the earlier rules on the ground that
they were applicable on the date of his appointment, particularly when the
1970 Rules were not applicable to the area in which he was appointed.
26. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the
petitioner is entitled to have his services reckoned from 10.11.1975, the date
of his initial appointment, for the purpose of computing his pensionary
benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, particularly Rule 11(4)
thereof.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
elaborately referred to the various decisions and rules governing the
appointment and service conditions of village servants and village officers.
However, the threshold objection raised by the respondents regarding delay
and laches requires consideration. The petitioner has not satisfactorily
explained why he did not approach this Court within a reasonable time,
40/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
particularly when he retired from service on 30.09.2007 and submitted his
representation only on 12.03.2015, nearly eight years after his retirement. It
is seen that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.6590 of 2015,
seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation. Pursuant
to the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2019, the respondents passed the
impugned order dated 16.12.2019. The impugned order was passed more than
twelve years after his retirement, in respect of a claim that ought to have been
raised when G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995, was issued, treating all
village officers and servants en masse as part-time employees. However, the
direction to consider the representation cannot, by itself, confer a fresh cause
of action upon the petitioner in respect of a claim that had become stale. In
this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.
Jacob (referred supra) are relevant. The petitioner cannot revive a stale
claim merely by submitting a representation and obtaining a direction for its
consideration.
28. It is true that the appointment order of the petitioner,
extracted earlier, indicates that he was appointed temporarily and placed on a
time scale of pay. The appointment order further states that the appointment
41/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
was purely temporary and that the petitioner would be paid the scale of pay
fixed for a ‘Vetti’ under the Tamil Nadu pattern. The appointment was made
on 10.11.1975 and refers to G.O.Ms.No.3597, dated 28.11.1970. However,
neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed the said Government
Order before this Court. It has been represented at the Bar that the
Government Order is not traceable. It is also pertinent to note that the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, came into force on 01.11.1956, whereas the
petitioner was appointed only on 10.11.1975. The Tamil Nadu Village
Officers Service Rules, 1970, were stated to be inapplicable to Kanyakumari
District and the areas referred to by the petitioner. Subsequently, The Tamil
Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1980, which came into force with effect
from 21.01.1981, were issued in supersession of the 1970 Rules and brought
within their scope the village officers governed under various enactments.
Rule 1(4) and Rule 3 specifically provides for the applicability of the said
Rules to the relevant categories of village officers. Thus, by virtue of the
application of the said Rules, the petitioner also fell within their scope.
29. The petitioner has relied upon Sections 119 and 120 of the
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, to contend that any alteration or
42/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
modification of the law applicable to him ought to have been made in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said provisions. There
can be no quarrel with the general proposition that the continuation or
alteration of laws following the reorganisation of States is governed by the
relevant provisions of the Act. However, the petitioner was appointed only in
the year 1975, long after the States Reorganisation Act came into force. Had
the petitioner been appointed under the law applicable to the erstwhile
Travancore-Cochin State before the reorganisation and had his service
continued following the transfer of territories to the State of Tamil Nadu, a
question could have arisen as to whether the law governing his appointment
had been modified in accordance with Sections 119 and 120 of the Act. In the
present case, the petitioner’s appointment was made in 1975 under the Tamil
Nadu pattern. Therefore, the reliance placed on the aforesaid provisions and
the judgment in B. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) does not support the
petitioner’s case.
30. The issue need not detain this Court any further in view of
the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Full Bench in A. Elangovan
(supra). The legal position has also been considered in the subsequent
43/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in C. Chellaswamy (supra). In view
of the settled position of law, the petitioner has not made out a case
warranting a different conclusion merely on the basis of the date of his
appointment or the nature of his initial appointment as a temporary employee
on a time scale of pay.
31. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable
to accept the petitioner’s contention that his past service is liable to be
reckoned from 08.11.1975 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The
petitioner has also failed to overcome the objection regarding delay and
laches. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned
order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.
Aa2/47522/2018.
32. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall
.
be no order as to costs
16.10.2026
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
KSA
44/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
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.
45/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )
WP(MD) NO. 2833 of 2021
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
KSA
Order in
WP(MD) NO. 2535 of 2017
16 .10.2026
46/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:59:39 pm )