Part-Time Service Cannot Be Counted for Pension Qualifications Under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules

The Respondent, M. Kannan, was initially appointed as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk in a Village Panchayat.

Following a government policy decision, he was regularized and absorbed into a sanctioned post as a Junior Assistant in a regular time scale of pay.

Upon retirement, the Respondent sought to have 50% of his past service as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk counted as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits, citing G.O.Ms.No.39 (2011), G.O.Ms.No.77 (2013), and G.O.Ms.No.99 (2022).

The Writ Court, in an order dated 18.01.2024, granted this benefit.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed this intra-court appeal challenging that order, arguing it conflicted with established Pension Rules and Full Bench precedents.

1. Whether services rendered in a part-time capacity (Part-Time Panchayat Clerk) can be reckoned to the extent of 50% for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978?

2. Whether judicial precedents or Government Orders that run counter to the statutory Pension Rules and Full Bench decisions can be followed to grant relief?

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which serves as a welfare provision allowing for the counting of 50% of temporary service, provided such service was in a "whole-time job" and not a "part-time job".

The Full Bench judgment in P.L.S. Palaniappan to establish that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or compel a public authority to repeat an erroneous order.

The recent Division Bench ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram (2026/MHC/2486), which clarified that statutory rules override inconsistent prior judicial pronouncements or Government Orders.

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

Rule 11 specifically excludes part-time employment from being counted toward qualifying service.

The Court observed that a "spinning wheel of precedent" had been created by various benches following individual orders that lacked a basis in statutory law.

It held that any Government Order or Court judgment that contradicts Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the 1978 Rules—or the ratio laid down by Full Benches—is "denuded" of its status as a precedent.

Consequently, because the Respondent’s initial service was undisputedly part-time, he was legally ineligible to claim the 50% service weightage.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Writ Court dated 18.01.2024 was set aside.

The Court directed that the benefit of counting 50% of service is strictly reserved for whole-time temporary employees and cannot be extended to Part-Time Panchayat Clerks.

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no order as to costs.