Former Part-Time Panchayat Clerk’s 1984–90 Service Won’t Count Toward Pension, Madras HC Says, Citing Full Bench Ruling

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Panchayat Clerk on 15 March 1984; the post was redesignated as Panchayat Assistant from 1 January 1991.

He was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 22 December 2000 and retired as a Deputy Block Development Officer on 31 January 2019.

The pension authorities counted 50% of his service from 1 January 1991 to 28 December 2000, but excluded his earlier part-time service from 15 March 1984 to 31 December 1990.

He sought a mandamus to have that earlier service counted for pension, relying on G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 and W.A.No.259 of 2016.

The State opposed the claim under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the Full Bench decision in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy.

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, as interpreted by the Full Bench in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy, (2019) 6 CTC 705, permits the counting of 50% of past service towards pension only for eligible employees who rendered full-time service, not part-time service.

Rule 82 permits the Government, with Finance Department concurrence and for recorded reasons, to relax the Pension Rules in a particular case.

G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 extended a 50% past-service benefit, but G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12 July 2013 withdrew the concession for part-time employees.

The Court also followed the Division Bench ruling in A. Chidambaram, which applied the Full Bench decision and distinguished earlier Division Bench rulings.

The Court accepted that G.O.Ms.No.39, issued with Finance Department concurrence, could be understood as a concession under Rule 82, but held that the concession was later withdrawn by G.O.Ms.No.77.

Although earlier Division Benches had protected benefits said to have accrued under G.O.Ms.No.39, the Court considered that the binding Full Bench ruling had not been brought to their attention.

It therefore followed A. Chidambaram, which applied R. Kaliyamoorthy to hold that the pension rules did not extend the 50% counting benefit to part-time service.

The Court accordingly rejected the petitioner’s claim for his 1984–1990 service.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.