Employees regularly appointed after 1 April 2003 are ineligible for the Old Pension Scheme.

The petitioner was initially appointed temporarily on 13 November 1997 under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

He was subsequently ousted from service, and temporary employees were brought into the regular establishment with effect from 30 April 2003.

Since the petitioner’s regular appointment/regularisation took effect after the cut-off date of 1 April 2003, he was brought under the New Pension Scheme/Contributory Provident Fund Scheme rather than the Old Pension Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 21 February 2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, and the consequential order dated 8 September 2025 passed by the Principal Accountant General, seeking coverage under the General Provident Fund Scheme and payment of pensionary benefits, relying on the order in W.P. No. 8539 of 2006 dated 15 June 2010.

Whether an employee initially appointed temporarily before 1 April 2003 but regularly appointed or regularised only after 1 April 2003 is entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme/Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 or the General Provident Fund Scheme.

Whether the impugned orders dated 21 February 2025 and 8 September 2025 were illegal, contrary to natural justice, or otherwise liable to be quashed.

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, particularly the principle that only employees regularly appointed in accordance with the applicable service rules before 1 April 2003 are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme; temporary service under Rule 10(a)(1) before that date does not confer such entitlement when regular appointment occurs thereafter.

The Court relied principally on P. Jayakumari v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. Nos. 1661 of 2015, 19076 and 35462 of 2023, decided on 18 March 2024, and followed K. Mythili v. State, W.P. No. 37448 of 2016, decided on 13 March 2018, and M. Thangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 27765 of 2019, decided on 9 January 2020.

These authorities establish that the expression “except pensionary benefits” in the relevant High Court circular does not extend Old Pension Scheme benefits to employees regularly appointed after 1 April 2003; such employees are governed by the Contributory Pension Scheme.

The Court treated the date of regular appointment, rather than the date of temporary appointment, as determinative for pension-scheme eligibility.

Although the petitioner was initially engaged in 1997, his services were brought into the regular establishment only with effect from 30 April 2003, after the statutory cut-off date of 1 April 2003.

Applying P. Jayakumari and the related precedents, the Court held that prior temporary service under Rule 10(a)(1) could not qualify the petitioner for the Old Pension Scheme or the General Provident Fund Scheme.

The reference to pensionary benefits in the High Court circular was understood as referring to benefits under the Contributory Pension Scheme, not the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the challenged orders.

He was instead governed by the New Pension Scheme/Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

The writ petition was dismissed, the impugned orders were not quashed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

No order as to costs was made.