Authorities must verify service records and grant admissible benefits to eligible part-time Panchayat clerks.

The appellant was appointed as a Part-time Clerk in Eranji Village Panchayat, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

As he was overaged even at the time of appointment, his services were not regularised.

He continued as a Part-time Panchayat Clerk pursuant to an interim order passed in W.P. No. 10583 of 2017, until attaining the age of superannuation.

The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 7 August 2023, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

During the appeal, the appellant sought extension of admissible service and monetary benefits, while the respondents contended that he had not been absorbed as a full-time employee and could claim benefits only if otherwise eligible under the applicable rules.

Whether the appellant, who served as a Part-time Panchayat Clerk without regularisation or absorption as a full-time employee, was entitled to any service or monetary benefits under the applicable Service Rules.

Whether the respondents should be directed to independently verify the appellant’s service records and extend any benefits for which he was otherwise eligible, without requiring him to submit a fresh representation.

The Court applied the principle that entitlement to service or monetary benefits depends upon eligibility under the Service Rules applicable to the employee and the particulars established by the official service records.

The Court did not cite any specific statute, rule, or judicial precedent.

It accepted that service as a part-time employee, without regularisation or absorption as a full-time employee, did not by itself establish entitlement to all benefits; however, any benefits otherwise admissible under the applicable rules had to be considered and extended.

The appellant’s overage status and non-regularisation prevented the Court from directing his absorption or granting benefits as a regular full-time employee.

At the same time, the respondents acknowledged that he could receive benefits if he was otherwise eligible under the governing rules.

Rather than require the appellant to initiate another representation after rendering service until superannuation, the Court directed the authorities to examine the existing service records and determine eligibility under the applicable Service Rules.

The Court therefore granted limited relief confined to verification and payment of legally admissible benefits, without deciding that the appellant was entitled to regularisation or full-time service benefits.

No direction was issued for regularisation, absorption as a full-time employee, or automatic conferment of benefits.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.