Employees regularly appointed after April 1, 2003, are ineligible for the Old Pension Scheme despite prior temporary service.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a temporary employee in 2002.

His services were ousted in 2007, but he was re-appointed on a regular basis on June 21, 2007, following a court order.

Although a General Provident Fund (GPF) account was opened for him during his temporary tenure and subscriptions were collected, the 3rd respondent issued an order on March 12, 2025, to stop the GPF account and deny benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The petitioner challenged this, seeking the restoration of his GPF account and pension benefits under the OPS, arguing that his initial engagement predated the 2003 cut-off for the New Pension Scheme.

1. Whether an employee whose services were regularized after April 1, 2003, is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

2. Whether the mere collection of GPF subscriptions or temporary service rendered prior to the cut-off date confers a right to remain under the Old Pension Scheme.

The case is governed by the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that the rules do not apply to Government Servants appointed on or after April 1, 2003.

Division Bench precedent in P. Jayakumari v. State (2024), which established that temporary employees appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) prior to the cut-off date but regularized after it are not eligible for the Old Pension Scheme.

The principle from K. Mythili v. State (2018), holding that high court circulars mentioning "pensionary benefits" for temporary staff refer to the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), not the OPS.

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s service was admittedly regularized on June 21, 2007, long after the April 1, 2003, cut-off date for the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (CPS).

It held that once an employee accepts a date of regularization and continues in service for years, they cannot later claim OPS benefits.

Regarding the GPF account, the court clarified that the mere opening of an account or collection of subscriptions does not override statutory rules; since the petitioner joined regular service post-2003, his eligibility is limited to the CPS.

The court emphasized that "pensionary benefits" in ministerial circulars must be interpreted contextually as referring to the CPS for all post-2003 regular appointments.

The court found no infirmity in the 3rd respondent's order dated March 12, 2025.

The court directed the respondents to rectify any erroneous contributions collected and ensure the petitioner receives all entitled benefits under the CPS.