Part-time Panchayat Clerk service cannot be counted toward pension absent authority under Pension Rules.

In W.A. No. 3494 of 2023, N. Rajendran joined the Panchayat Union Office as a Part-Time Clerk on 1 August 1973 and was absorbed as a full-time Junior Assistant with effect from 31 December 1990. In W.A. No. 3435 of 2023, S. Xavier joined as a Part-Time Clerk on 16 May 1972 and was absorbed as a full-time Junior Assistant with effect from 28 December 1990.

Both employees claimed that 50% of their prior service as Part-Time Clerks should be counted for pensionary purposes. The learned Single Judge allowed their writ petitions—W.P. Nos. 22620 and 22625 of 2013—by orders dated 31 October 2022. The State and its authorities filed the present intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging those orders.

Whether 50% of the service rendered by the respondents as Part-Time Clerks in Panchayat Union Offices could be counted as qualifying service for pension under the applicable Pension Rules, 1978

Whether earlier orders or Government Orders granting similar pensionary benefits could be relied upon to claim the same benefit, notwithstanding the applicable Pension Rules and contrary Full Bench decisions

The Court applied Rules 11(2) and 11(4) of the Pension Rules, 1978, holding that pensionary benefits must be determined strictly in accordance with the statutory Pension Rules and that part-time service could not be counted merely on the basis of prior judicial or administrative orders.

It relied on the decision in The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. A. Chidambaram, reported as 2026:MHC:2486, which followed the applicable Full Bench decisions, including P.L.S. Palaniappan. The Court further applied the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality: an erroneous benefit granted in one case does not entitle similarly situated persons to claim the same benefit.

The respondents’ claim was based on their previous part-time service and on the existence of earlier orders granting comparable pensionary treatment. The Court, however, treated the issue as settled by A. Chidambaram, which held that such claims must be tested against the Pension Rules rather than against a series of earlier orders or Government Orders.

Since the earlier decisions relied upon by the respondents were inconsistent with Rules 11(2) and 11(4) and contrary to the Full Bench position, they could not be followed as precedent. The Court also rejected any argument based on parity under Article 14, observing that a public authority cannot be compelled to repeat an erroneous or legally impermissible benefit merely because it was granted in other cases. Accordingly, the respondents were not entitled to count 50% of their part-time service for pension.

The orders dated 31 October 2022 in W.P. Nos. 22620 and 22625 of 2013 were set aside, and W.A. Nos. 3494 and 3435 of 2023 were allowed. No costs were awarded, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.