S.Manoharan vs The District Collector
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 24184 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24184 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011405972022}
S.Manoharan
S/o.K.M.Sabapathy,
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj,
Chennai-600 015.
4. The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai-600 015.
5. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri.
6. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Dharmapuri.
7. The Block Educational Officer,
Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.
8. The Principal Accountant General (A & E)
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
Prayer:- This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to take
into account half of the services of the petitioner in non-provincialized service
from 01.03.1986 to 28.12.2000 along with the service rendered by him in
provincialized services from 29.12.2000 to 31.05.2022 to arrive at the total
qualifying service for the purpose of pension in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.
39 Rural Development Department and Panchayat Raj dated 13.06.2011 and in
the light of the order in W.P. (MD). No. 14770 of 2012 dated 25.07.2014 upheld
in W.A.(MD). No. 1028 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015 which was implemented in
G.O.(2D) No.8, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated
29.01.2016 in the case of a similarly placed person and on that basis revise the
petitioner’s pensionary benefits also and disburse the arrears thereof and all
attendant benefits with 18 % interest per annum within a limited time frame by
this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Thamaraiselvan
For Respondent(s): Ms. Y. Kavitha, Addl. Gov. Pleader,
for R1 to R7
Ms. Arthi Fernandaz,
Standing Counsel, for R8
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to count his non-
provincialized service from 01.03.1986 to 28.12.2000, along with his
provincialized service from 29.12.2000 to 31.05.2022, for the purpose of
calculating pensionary benefits in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.39 Rural
Development Department and Panchayat Raj dated 13.06.2011 and in the light
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
of the order in W.P. (MD). No. 14770 of 2012 dated 25.07.2014 upheld in W.A.
(MD). No. 1028 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015 which was implemented in G.O.(2D)
No.8, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 29.01.2016 and
payment of arrears with 18% interest per annum on that basis revise the
petitioner’s pensionary benefits also and disburse the arrears thereof and all
attendant benefits with 18 % interest per annum.
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
01.03.1986 and continued in the said position until 28.12.2000. Subsequently,
he was promoted as Junior Assistant in the Veppanapalli Panchayat Union with
effect from 29.12.2000, and eventually retired from service on 31.05.2022 as a
B.T. Assistant. It is the submission of the petitioner that, though the pension
authorities have counted 50% of his past service rendered from 29.12.2000 to
31.05.2022, his service as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 01.03.1986 to
28.12.2000 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
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
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 Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, as
per G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department,
dated 13.06.2011, 50% of the part-time service was permitted to be 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
Counsel would contend that the same should be construed as a relaxation
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
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 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 Counsel, has been considered in various judgments of
the Division Benches of this Court, more particularly, in The Government of
Tamil Nadu v. A. Duraisamy (W.A.No.3784 of 2024, dated 06.01.2025), which
was subsequently followed by another Division Bench in W.A.No.2660 of 2025,
dated 10.09.2025. Hence, the learned 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 seven respondents and
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
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 promotion as a Junior Assistant with effect from
29.12.2000. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader would
specifically contend that, under Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules, past service
can be counted only in respect of eligible regular employees and that the said
position has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Government
of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy , reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705. Therefore,
notwithstanding the judgments of the Division Benches relied upon by the
petitioner, the issue having already been clarified by the Full Bench of this
Court, the petitioner's request for counting his part-time service is not
maintainable. In this regard, she would also rely upon the latest decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram,
reported in 2026:MHC:2486. Hence, she 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.
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
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 Counsel would contend that G.O.Ms.No.39
was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department and that, in view of
the specific provisions of the Pension Rules permitting the counting of 50% of
past non-provincialised full-time service for pensionary purposes, the relaxation
granted under G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a conscious decision of the
Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules. For
ready reference, the relevant provision is extracted hereunder:-
“ 82. Power to relax: Where any Department of the Government
is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue
hardship in any particular case, the Department, may by order
for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the
requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such
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.”
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
8. On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that G.O.Ms.No.39 was
issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Therefore, it may be
construed, to that extent, as a concession extended to the employees concerned.
However, by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013, the very same
Department withdrew the said concession. Therefore, insofar as the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel that G.O.Ms.No.39 should be construed as a
relaxation granted under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules is concerned, this Court
is of the firm view that such relaxation was subsequently withdrawn by
G.O.Ms.No.77. Hence, the contention based on Rule 82 of the Pension Rules
cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Coming to the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, as
rightly contended by the learned 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.
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
10. However, in a subsequent decision, the Division Bench of this Court
in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra) distinguished the various judgments
rendered by the earlier Division Benches of this Court, having regard to the
relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, particularly Rule 11, and the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). The
Division Bench held that the Full Bench had categorically clarified the legal
position and declared that the benefit of counting 50% of past service towards
pension was available only to employees who had rendered full-time service
and not to those who had rendered part-time service. In view of the said Full
Bench decision and the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, the earlier
judgments of the Division Benches could not be treated as binding precedents to
the contrary.
11. At this juncture, the learned 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
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel. But the
above argument has no application in the instant case, as the previous bench
was not informed about the binding decision of the Full Bench.
12. In the case in hand, while considering the subsequent decision of the
Division Bench in A.Chidambaram's case (cited supra), it is relevant to note
that the said Division Bench relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in R.Kaliyamoorthy's case, which had not been brought to the notice of
the earlier Division Benches. In R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra), the Full
Bench categorically held that the benefit of counting 50% of past service
towards pension was extended only to employees who had rendered full-time
service and not to those who had rendered part-time service. As already stated,
the said Full Bench decision had not been brought to the notice of the earlier
Division Benches while they were considering the issue.
13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the earlier Division Benches
had taken a different view. However, since the subsequent Division Bench in
A.Chidambaram's case followed the decision of the Full Bench and considered
the issue in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, this
Court is of the firm view that, sitting as a Single Judge, I am bound by the
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
decision of the Division Bench rendered on the basis of the Full Bench decision
in R. Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra).
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the petitioner’s claim for counting 50% of his past part-time service for the
purpose of calculating pension cannot be granted, in view of Rule 11 of the
Pension Rules and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
R.Kaliyamoorthy's case (cited supra). Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MRP
To
1. The Government of Tamilnaldu
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj
Chennai-600 015.
4. The Directr of Elementary Education
Chennai-600 015.
5. The District Collector
Dharmapuri.
6. The District Elementary Education Officer
Dharmapuri.
7. The Block Educational Officer
Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.
8. The Principal Accountant General (A and E)
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )
WP No. 24184 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
MRP
WP No. 24184 of 2022
27-10-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:46 pm )