Madras High Court

Part-time service cannot be counted for pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The State of Tamil Nadu, vs R.Rajendran

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: July 20, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The State of Tamil Nadu preferred an intra-court appeal challenging a Writ Court order dated January 18, 2024, in W.P. No. 6485 of 2023

Source reference: p.1

The original order directed the State to count 50% of the service rendered by the respondent as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk for the purpose of pensionary benefits

Source reference: p.2

The State contended that part-time service cannot be equated with the temporary full-time service contemplated under the pension rules

Source reference: p.3
02

Issues

1. 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

Source reference: p.3, para. 30
03

Law Applied

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which allows for counting 50% of temporary service provided the employment was in a "whole-time job" and not a "part-time job"

Source reference: p.3, para. 26

Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or compel a public authority to repeat an erroneous order, as established by Full Bench judgments (referenced via P.L.S. Palaniappan)

Source reference: p.3-4, para. 29

Recent common judgment in W.A.No.1569 of 2026 etc. batch (dated 23.06.2026), which consolidated the law on this subject

Source reference: p.2, para. 2
04

Reasoning

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

Source reference: p.2, para. 26

Rule 11 is a welfare provision intended for temporary full-time employees; extending it to part-time staff would contradict the unambiguous language of the statute

Source reference: p.3, para. 26

The Bench observed that many prior Single Judge and Division Bench orders granting such relief were "running counter to the Pension Rules" and were based on implementing previous erroneous court orders rather than the actual law

Source reference: p.3, para. 27-28

Applying the Full Bench principle, the court determined that even if the State had failed to appeal similar orders in the past, it was not precluded from challenging the current order, as wrong precedents do not create a legal right

Source reference: p.3-4, para. 29

All prior judgments allowing the counting of 50% part-time service were declared to have lost their status as precedents

Source reference: p.4, para. 31
05

Holding

The court answered the issue in the negative, holding that part-time service cannot be counted toward pension under Rule 11 of the 1978 Rules

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Writ Court dated 18.01.2024 in W.P. No. 6485 of 2023 was set aside. No costs were awarded

Source reference: p.5, para. 3
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

The State of Tamil Nadu,vsR.Rajendran

Madras High Court · July 20, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment