Part-time Karnam service is ineligible for 50% pensionary service counting under Rule 11(4).

The respondent retired from Government service on 30 June 2010 while serving as an Assistant in the Revenue Divisional Office.

Before his appointment as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 11 August 1982, he had served as a Karnam in Tiruvannamalai District from 22 October 1972 to 14 November 1980.

His pension was calculated by counting service from the date of his VAO appointment.

He claimed that 50% of his earlier service as Karnam should also be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The respondent’s writ petition seeking restoration/recalculation of pension was allowed by the Single Judge on 3 January 2023 in W.P. No. 4529 of 2016.

The Principal Accountant General challenged that order in the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the respondent was entitled to count 50% of the service rendered as a part-time Karnam towards qualifying service for pension under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Whether recovery of excess pension already paid to the respondent should be permitted after his pension was recalculated in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Court applied Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which permits counting of 50% of qualifying temporary service only subject to the conditions prescribed therein; the provision must be applied stricto sensu.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in A. Sundaram v. Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, 2026:MHC:2249, which held that part-time service is not eligible for counting under Rule 11(4), and that the contrary view in V. Ganapathy—holding the restriction unconstitutional—was not good law and had lost its precedential status.

The Court also applied the principle that recovery of excess pension from a pensioner may cause undue hardship; accordingly, although the pensionary claim was rejected, recovery of excess amounts already paid was not permitted.

The respondent’s earlier service was rendered as a part-time Karnam, and the Court treated the post as falling outside the service eligible for counting under Rule 11(4).

In light of the Full Bench ruling requiring strict compliance with the rule, the respondent could not rely on the earlier contrary precedent or claim even 50% of his Karnam service for pensionary purposes.

However, since the respondent was a pensioner and recovery of excess pension would cause hardship, the Court exercised the protective principle against recovery from pensioners and directed that no recovery be made of amounts already paid.

Nevertheless, recovery of excess pension already paid was set aside.

The Single Judge’s order dated 3 January 2023 was consequently set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.