Government servants appointed after 1 April 2003 are governed by the New Pension Scheme, not the Old Pension Scheme.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Typist on a temporary basis on 24.11.1997 under Rule 16(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules.

Temporary employees were periodically ousted and re-engaged.

Subsequently, pursuant to proceedings issued by the Registrar General on 13.03.2003, temporary Typists were to be appointed afresh in sanctioned posts, with their previous temporary service excluded for service benefits except pensionary benefits.

The petitioner was accordingly appointed by the appointing authority on 10.04.2003, after the cut-off date of 01.04.2003.

The Accountant General rejected the proposal on the ground that her regular appointment took effect after 01.04.2003, making her eligible only for the New Pension/Contributory Pension Scheme.

She therefore sought a mandamus directing reconsideration of the proposal for inclusion under the Old Pension Scheme.

Whether the Registrar General’s instructions dated 13.03.2003, rather than the petitioner’s appointment order dated 10.04.2003, determined the relevant date of appointment for pensionary benefits?

Whether the petitioner, whose regular appointment took effect on 10.04.2003, was entitled to coverage under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the Old Pension Scheme despite the 01.04.2003 cut-off date?

Whether the erroneous reference to pensionary benefits in the appointment-related instructions or appointment order could confer a right to Old Pension Scheme benefits contrary to the applicable pension rules?

The Court applied Rule 16(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, which permits temporary appointments in emergencies, and Rule 16(e)(i), under which such temporary appointees do not acquire the status of probationers or a preferential claim to future appointment.

It held that instructions issued by the Registrar General to appoint temporary employees did not themselves constitute appointments; the appointment order issued by the competent appointing authority determined the date of appointment and consequent service benefits.

The Court further applied Rule 1(2) proviso of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which excludes Government servants appointed on or after 01.04.2003 from its operation, whether appointed temporarily or permanently.

Rule 11(4), concerning the counting of temporary service, could assist only where the appointment was made before the cut-off date.

An erroneous administrative reference to pensionary benefits cannot override statutory pension rules or create entitlement contrary to law.

The Court distinguished the Registrar General’s administrative instructions from an actual appointment order.

Since the petitioner’s appointment to the regular establishment was issued by the appointing authority only on 10.04.2003, that date governed her eligibility for pensionary benefits.

Although the 13.03.2003 instructions stated that previous temporary service would be disregarded except for pensionary benefits, the Court noted that, at that time, the New Pension Scheme had not yet come into force and there were not two competing pension schemes.

By the date of the petitioner’s actual appointment, the amended pension regime excluded appointments made on or after 01.04.2003 from the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Accordingly, the reference to pensionary benefits in the administrative instructions and appointment order could not displace the statutory cut-off or confer a right to the Old Pension Scheme.

She was instead entitled to benefits under the New Pension/Contributory Pension Scheme.

The respondents were directed to complete the necessary process and submit proposals for settlement of her New Pension Scheme benefits within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.