Leave on loss of pay cannot count as qualifying pension service absent a specific judicial direction.

The petitioner, a former Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, sought computation of the periods from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 and 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 as qualifying service for pension.

The periods related to alleged unauthorised absence and subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

In O.A. No. 1402 of 1996, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal directed that the petitioner’s available leave be adjusted and that the remaining period be treated as leave on loss of pay; the petitioner’s available earned leave was accordingly adjusted, while the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 was treated as leave on loss of pay.

Subsequently, in W.P. No. 6622 of 2012, the High Court directed that the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 be treated as duty solely for computation of pension, while denying salary and other benefits for that period.

The respondents thereafter included the latter period for pension purposes but excluded the period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986, treating it as leave on loss of pay under Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

The petitioner challenged the relevant Government Orders, departmental order and pension payment order, contending that his entire service period ought to be counted for pension.

The Court applied Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, including its proviso, under which a period treated as leave on loss of pay is not ordinarily qualifying service for pension unless there is a specific order directing its inclusion.

The Court also applied the principle that a judicial direction must be implemented according to its express terms and cannot be enlarged by implication.

The order in W.P. No. 6622 of 2012 specifically directed that only the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 be treated as duty for pension purposes.

The Court distinguished R. Iyyappan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 742, observing that the present case involved no deviation from a specific judicial direction.

The Court found that the respondents had already complied with the order in W.P. No. 6622 of 2012 by counting the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 for pension, notwithstanding its treatment as leave on loss of pay.

In contrast, neither the order in O.A. No. 1402 of 1996 nor the order in W.P. No. 6622 of 2012 expressly directed that the earlier period from 12.09.1980 to 15.09.1986 be treated as duty.

The Tribunal had merely directed adjustment of the leave to which the petitioner was entitled; after adjustment of the available 20 days of earned leave, the remaining period was lawfully treated as leave on loss of pay.

Since Rule 18 excludes such leave from qualifying service absent a specific direction for inclusion, the petitioner could not rely on the general reference to service from the date of original appointment to claim pensionary credit for the disputed period.

The Court therefore rejected the argument that the earlier period was impliedly covered by the subsequent judgment.

The respondents had correctly included only the period from 16.09.1986 to 14.07.1992 pursuant to the express direction in W.P. No. 6622 of 2012.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no order as to costs was made.