Part-time service cannot be counted for pensionary benefits under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

The respondents/writ petitioners were initially appointed as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks in various Village Panchayats.

The Government later regularized their services in the sanctioned posts of Junior Assistants in the time scale of pay.

Upon retirement, the employees claimed that 50% of their service rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks should be counted as "qualifying service" for pension calculation, relying on G.O.Ms.No.39 (2011) and subsequent government orders.

Various Single Judge and Division Bench orders had previously granted such benefits, leading to inconsistent judicial pronouncements.

The State and the Accountant General filed these intra-court appeals challenging the Writ Court's orders which had extended these benefits to part-time employees.

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

2. Whether executive instructions or government orders implementing specific court directions can override the express statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The court primarily applied Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Specifically, Rule 11(2)(i) stipulates that service paid from contingencies counts toward pension only if it involves "whole-time employment and not part-time".

Rule 11(4), inserted via amendment in 2010, allows 50% of service rendered on consolidated pay or honorarium to be counted provided the job involved "whole time employment".

The court relied on the Full Bench decisions in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy (2019), which mandated strict adherence to Rule 11(4).

The court relied on Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.L.S. Palaniappan (2026), which established that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or compel the state to repeat an erroneous order.

The court reasoned that the legislative intent of Rule 11 is unambiguous: only temporary employees in whole-time jobs are entitled to count 50% of such service for pensionary benefits.

It observed that the respondents were undeniably "Part-Time" employees.

The court found that previous judicial orders granting this benefit and the subsequent Government Orders (like G.O.Ms.No.39) were issued merely to comply with specific court directions rather than as broad policy decisions, and thus ran counter to the statutory Rules.

The court clarified that pension is a right within the framework of the 1978 Rules; therefore, any executive instruction or judicial precedent that dilutes the "whole-time" requirement of Rule 11 is an "over-inflation" of the provision and cannot be followed.

Applying the principle of P.L.S. Palaniappan, the court held that even if the State had implemented wrong orders in the past, it is not precluded from challenging similar erroneous claims in the present.

The court concluded that all previous Single Judge or Division Bench judgments running counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) have lost their status as precedents.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Writ Court and allowed the State's appeals, effectively denying the claim for counting 50% of part-time service; individual writ petitions seeking such relief were dismissed.