Minimum pension granted by relaxing qualifying-service rules is payable from the date of superannuation.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Headman on 12 July 1979.

Following abolition of the post, he was subsequently appointed as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 1 November 2000 and superannuated in October 2009.

The Government, by G.O. (Ms.) No. 158, Revenue [Pani-8(2)] Department dated 8 April 2015, relaxed Rule 43 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and sanctioned minimum pension to 184 similarly placed former Village Officers, including the petitioner.

However, the Government Order made the pension payable only from its date rather than from the petitioner’s date of superannuation.

The petitioner therefore challenged the prospective operation of the Government Order and sought pension arrears from 1 November 2009 to 7 April 2015.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had already received the benefit of a special concession and was not entitled to an additional retrospective financial benefit.

1. Whether the petitioner, whose minimum qualifying service requirement under Rule 43 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was relaxed by G.O. (Ms.) No. 158 dated 8 April 2015, was entitled to receive minimum pension from the date of his superannuation rather than from the date of the Government Order.

2. Whether the prospective restriction in the Government Order was liable to be quashed as against the petitioner, in light of earlier decisions granting similarly placed persons pension from their respective dates of retirement.

The Court applied Rule 43 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which governs entitlement to pension based on qualifying service, together with the Government’s power, exercised through G.O. (Ms.) No. 158 dated 8 April 2015, to relax the minimum qualifying-service requirement and grant minimum pension to eligible former Village Officers.

The Court further applied the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, holding that similarly placed persons should receive identical treatment where earlier decisions of the High Court had granted pension from the actual dates of retirement under the same Government Order.

The Court relied on its earlier orders in W.P. No. 37535 of 2015 dated 22 November 2022 and W.P. No. 173 of 2017 dated 2 April 2024.

The Court noted that, although it had apprehensions regarding the petitioner’s claim that the relaxation should operate retrospectively from the date of retirement, the petitioner had subsequently served as a VAO from 2000 until his superannuation in 2009 and was materially comparable to the petitioners in the earlier cases.

The respondents’ attempt to distinguish those precedents on the basis of continuity of service was rejected.

Applying judicial discipline, the Court held that the petitioner was similarly situated and was entitled to the same treatment as persons who had already been granted pension from their actual dates of retirement under G.O. (Ms.) No. 158.

Consequently, the restriction making pension payable only from 8 April 2015 was found unsustainable as against the petitioner.

The Court quashed G.O. (Ms.) No. 158, Revenue [Pani-8(2)] Department dated 8 April 2015 insofar as it fixed the date of payment of pension from the date of the Government Order.

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the petitioner minimum pension from 1 November 2009, stated as his date of superannuation, and to disburse the pension arrears for the period from 1 November 2009 to 7 April 2015 within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.