Part-time service cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

The respondent was initially appointed as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk in a Village Panchayat.

Following a government policy decision, his services were later regularized in the sanctioned post of Junior Assistant in a regular time scale of pay.

Upon retirement, the respondent claimed that 50% of his past service as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk should be counted as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits, relying on G.O.Ms.No.39 (2011) and subsequent government orders.

The Writ Court, in its order dated 18.01.2024, ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the state to extend this benefit.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed this intra-court appeal challenging that order.

1. Whether the service rendered as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk can be reckoned to the extent of 50% as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978?

2. Whether judicial precedents or government orders that run counter to statutory rules and Full Bench decisions can be followed to grant such relief?

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which allows for counting 50% of temporary service only if the employee was in a "whole-time" job, expressly excluding part-time service.

Full Bench judgment in P.L.S. Palaniappan to affirm that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or enforce a wrong order.

Division Bench precedent in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram (2026/MHC/2486).

The Court reasoned that pension is a deferred portion of wages that exists strictly within the framework of the Rules, 1978.

The Court observed that Rule 11 is a welfare provision meant for whole-time temporary employees and cannot be stretched to cover part-time workers.

The Court noted that previous inconsistent judgments granting 50% service weightage to part-time clerks were "running counter to the Pension Rules" and were often based on government orders that merely implemented isolated court mandates rather than the law itself.

Applying the principle from the Full Bench, the Court held that even if the State had erroneously implemented court orders in the past, it is not precluded from challenging similar incorrect claims in the future.

The Court found that the respondent’s claim lacked a statutory basis under Rule 11(2) and 11(4).

The Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the Writ Court dated 18.01.2024. All prior judgments or government orders contrary to Rule 11 and the Full Bench decisions were declared to have "denuded to lose its status as precedent". No costs were awarded.