Y.B.RAJAN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

WP No. 24899 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24899 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011497062023}
Y.B.Rajan
Block Development Officer (panchayat),
Gudalur, Nilgiris District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
2. The Director Of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector,
Nilgiri District, Nilgiri.
4. The Principal Accountant General(A & E)Tamil Nadu,
No. 361, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 018.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of
orders passed by Division Bench of this Honble court in Writ Appeal No. 431
of 2016 dated 11.04.2016 and W.A. No. 2358 /2021 dated 16.12.2021 by
counting 50 % sservices rendered by the petitioner in the post of part time
panchayat clerk from 01.04.1978 till 18.02.1986 for the purpose of granting
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
pension along with regular service rendered by the petitioner between
19.02.1986 till 30.06.2008.
For Petitioner(s): MrK.S.Viswanath,
for Mrs. T.Hemalatha
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Ram Siddharthe,
AGP, for R1 to R3
Mr.P.Manorajan, Standing Counsel,
for R4
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus, directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the orders passed
in W.A.No.431 of 2016, dated 11.04.2016, and W.A.No.2358 of 2021, dated
16.12.2021, by counting 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner as a
Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 01.04.1978 to 18.02.1986, along with regular
service from 19.02.1986 to 30.06.2008, for the purpose of pension.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk on
01.04.1978 and continued in the said position until 18.02.1986. With effect
from 01.01.1991, the post was redesignated as Panchayat Assistant.
Subsequently, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 19.02.1986, and
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
eventually retired from service on 30.06.2008 as a Block Development Officer.
It is the submission of the petitioner that, though the pension authorities have
counted 50% of his past service rendered from 19.02.1986 to 30.06.2008, his
service as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 01.04.1978 to 18.02.1986 has not
been taken into account for the purpose of calculating pension.
2.1. The petitioner claims that G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 13.06.2011, extended the benefit of
counting 50% of the past Panchayat service for pensionary purposes. Though
the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4)
Department, dated 12.07.2013, withdrew the said benefit, in view of the various
Division Bench judgement of this Court, the petitioner claims that 50% of his
past part-time service is liable to be counted for the purpose of calculating
pension. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that, as per G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
Department, dated 13.06.2011, 50% of the part-time service was permitted to be
counted for the purpose of calculating pension and that the said Government
Order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Though the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules")
stipulate that the benefit of counting past service is applicable only to regular
employees, since G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, dated 13.06.2011, issued with the concurrence of the Finance
Department, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the same should be
construed as a relaxation granted by the Department under Rule 82 of the
Pension Rules, taking into consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the
employees concerned.
4.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, though
G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4) Department,
dated 12.07.2013, was subsequently issued withdrawing the said benefit, the
Government Order protected the rights that had already accrued upon persons
who had benefited under G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011. Therefore, the
petitioner, having acquired a vested right under G.O.Ms.No.39, cannot be
deprived of the said benefit by a subsequent Government Order. This position,
according to the learned Senior Counsel, has been considered in various
judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, more particularly, in The
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Duraisamy (W.A.No.3784 of 2024, dated
06.01.2025), which was subsequently followed by another Division Bench in
W.A.No.2660 of 2025, dated 10.09.2025. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel
would contend that the petitioner's past part-time service is liable to be counted
for the purpose of calculating pension and, accordingly, seeks issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus.
5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents and
would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's date of
appointment as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk, his subsequent redesignation as a
Panchayat Assistant, and his appointment as a Junior Assistant with effect from
19.02.1986. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader would
specifically contend that, under Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules, past service
can be counted only in respect of eligible regular employees and that the said
position has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Government
of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy , reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705. Therefore,
notwithstanding the judgments of the Division Benches relied upon by the
petitioner, the issue having already been clarified by the Full Bench of this
Court, the petitioner's request for counting his part-time service is not
maintainable. In this regard, he would also rely upon the latest decision of the
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram,
reported in 2026:MHC:2486. Hence, he prayed to dismiss of the present Writ
Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side.
7. It is not in dispute that, by G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011, the
Government directed that 50% of the past service be counted for pensionary
purposes, irrespective of whether such service was rendered on a full-time or
part-time basis. It is equally an admitted fact that, by G.O.Ms.No.77, dated
12.07.2013, the aforesaid benefit was withdrawn in respect of part-time
employees. However, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that
G.O.Ms.No.39 was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department and
that, in view of the specific provisions of the Pension Rules permitting the
counting of 50% of past non-provincialised full-time service for pensionary
purposes, the relaxation granted under G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a
conscious decision of the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 82
of the Pension Rules. For ready reference, the relevant provision is extracted
hereunder:-
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
“ 82. Power to relax: Where any Department of the Government
is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue
hardship in any particular case, the Department, may by order
for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the
requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such
exception and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing
with the case in a just and equitable manner:
Provided that no such order shall be made except with the
concurrence of the Finance Department.”
8. On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that G.O.Ms.No.39 was
issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Therefore, it may be
construed, to that extent, as a concession extended to the employees concerned.
However, by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, the very same
Department withdrew the said concession. Therefore, insofar as the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel that G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a
relaxation granted under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules is concerned, this Court
is of the firm view that such relaxation was subsequently withdrawn by
G.O.Ms.No.77. Hence, the contention based on Rule 82 of the Pension Rules
cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
9. Coming to the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, as
rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the Division Bench in
A.Duraisamy's case (cited supra) has categorically considered the issue relating
to the counting of 50% of past part-time service for calculating pension, with
reference to G.O.Ms.No.39 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77. The Division
Bench ultimately held that the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.39 could not
be withdrawn in respect of those employees who had already acquired such a
right, particularly when G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, itself preserved the
benefits already accrued to the eligible employees.
10. However, in a subsequent decision, the Division Bench of this Court
in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra) distinguished the various judgments
rendered by the earlier Division Benches of this Court, having regard to the
relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, particularly Rule 11, and the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). The
Division Bench held that the Full Bench had categorically clarified the legal
position and declared that the benefit of counting 50% of past service towards
pension was available only to employees who had rendered full-time service
and not to those who had rendered part-time service. In view of the said Full
Bench decision and the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, the earlier
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
judgments of the Division Benches could not be treated as binding precedents to
the contrary.
11. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel, relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, would contend that, when an
earlier judgment of co-equal bench has dealt with the same set of rules, a
subsequent co-equal Bench, if it intends to take a different view, must refer the
matter to a Larger Bench instead of taking a contrary view on its own. Any such
deviation from the aforesaid principle would amount to judicial impropriety.
This Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel. But the above argument has no application in the instant case,
as the previous bench was not informed about the binding decision of the Full
Bench.
12. In the case in hand, while considering the subsequent decision of the
Division Bench in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra), it is relevant to note
that the said Division Bench relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in R.Kaliyamoorthy's case, which had not been brought to the notice of
the earlier Division Benches. In R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra), the Full
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
Bench categorically held that the benefit of counting 50% of past service
towards pension was extended only to employees who had rendered full-time
service and not to those who had rendered part-time service. As already stated,
the said Full Bench decision had not been brought to the notice of the earlier
Division Benches while they were considering the issue.
13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the earlier Division Benches
had taken a different view. However, since the subsequent Division Bench in
A.Chidambaram's case followed the decision of the Full Bench and considered
the issue in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, this
Court is of the firm view that, sitting as a Single Judge, I am bound by the
decision of the Division Bench rendered on the basis of the Full Bench decision
in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra).
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the petitioner’s claim for counting 50% of his past part-time service for the
purpose of calculating pension cannot be granted, in view of Rule 11 of the
Pension Rules and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
15. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No 2/2
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MRP
To
1. The Principal Secretary To Government,
Government Of Tamilnadu
Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09
2. The Director Of Rural Development And
Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Nilgiri District, Nilgiri
4. The Principal Accountant General (a And E)
Tamil Nadu, No. 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-
600 018.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )

WP No. 24899 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
MRP
WP No. 24899 of 2023
2/2
27-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )