Part-time service cannot be counted for calculating pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an intra-court appeal challenging a Writ Court order dated January 18, 2024.

The Writ Court had directed the government to extend pensionary benefits to the respondent, P. Krishnan, by counting 50% of the service he rendered as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk toward his total qualifying service.

The State contended that part-time service cannot be equated with regular or whole-time temporary service for pension calculations under the relevant rules.

Whether 50% of the service rendered in a part-time capacity (as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk) can be counted for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, specifically sub-rules 11(2) and 11(4), which provide for counting 50% of temporary service provided the employment was in a "whole-time" job and not "part-time".

The principles settled by the Full Bench in P.L.S. Palaniappan and the Division Bench judgment in WA No. 1569 of 2026 establishing that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or compel the state to repeat an erroneous order.

Pension rights must operate strictly within the framework of the government-designed scheme.

The Court reasoned that pension is a deferred portion of wages governed strictly by the Rules of 1978; while Rule 11 acts as a welfare provision by allowing 50% of temporary service to be counted, it explicitly restricts this benefit to "whole-time" employees.

The Court observed that many previous orders granting such benefits to part-time clerks were based on implementing earlier court directions rather than correctly applying the law, creating a "spinning wheel of precedent" that diluted the actual Rules.

Applying the Full Bench ratio, the Court held that since the respondent was a part-time employee, the Writ Court's order ran counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4).

The Court further clarified that even if the State had failed to appeal similar wrong orders in the past, it was not precluded from challenging the current order, as consistency in error is not a legal requirement.

The Division Bench set aside the Writ Court order dated January 18, 2024, and allowed the State’s appeal, rejecting the respondent's claim for counting 50% of his part-time service.