Actual periods of service interruption shall not count as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The respondents were temporary employees (Typists, Junior Assistants, etc.) appointed in various government departments from 1986

Following an appointment ban in 1991, they were ousted from service

Subsequently, the State conducted Special Qualifying Examinations (SQE) in 1995 and 2000 to absorb these employees into regular service

While their prior temporary service was regularized, they experienced significant breaks in service, in some cases exceeding eight years

A Single Judge, following an earlier Division Bench ruling in W.A. No. 618 of 2025, directed the State to count these break periods as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits

The State appealed, arguing that Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, prohibits counting interruptions as qualifying service

A subsequent Division Bench, doubting the earlier precedent, referred the matter to this Full Bench

Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that while interruptions between two spells of civil service are automatically condoned to preserve "pre-interruption service," the period of interruption itself "shall not count as qualifying service"

Rule 24, which reaffirms that actual interruptions in service do not count for pension

The court applied the doctrine established in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, which holds that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP at the threshold does not constitute a declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141

The court conducted a literal interpretation of Rules 24 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978

It observed that Rule 25(1) serves to prevent the forfeiture of past service due to a gap, but Rule 25(3) contains an explicit and unambiguous prohibition against counting the actual duration of that gap as service

The court noted that the earlier Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Maria Antony Ruswald had granted relief based on "misplaced sympathy" rather than statutory adherence

It reasoned that judicial orders cannot override explicit statutory rules, as doing so would cause undue financial strain on the State treasury and create inconsistencies

The court clarified that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in the Ruswald case did not affirm the underlying legal error because the dismissal was a non-speaking order and thus did not attract the doctrine of merger or Article 141

The court specifically held that the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Maria Antony Ruswald is bad in law

The court ruled that the benefit of counting break periods cannot be extended en masse to employees, and the orders of the Single Judge were unsustainable