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

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging a Writ Court order dated 18.01.2024. The Writ Court had directed the government to extend the benefit of counting 50% of the respondent’s prior service as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk toward his pensionary benefits

The State contended that such part-time service cannot be regularized or counted for pension under the prevailing rules and recent judicial precedents

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

2. Whether previous judicial orders granting such benefits, which run counter to statutory rules, constitute binding precedents

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that while 50% of temporary/contingent service may be counted, such service must be in a "whole-time job" and not a "part-time job"

Full Bench judgment in P.L.S. Palaniappan, establishing that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality; thus, an erroneous earlier order cannot serve as a basis for compelling a public authority to repeat the error

Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1569 of 2026, which held that benefits must be granted strictly in accordance with statutory rules regardless of inconsistent prior Single Bench or Division Bench orders

The Court reasoned that pension is a deferred portion of wages governed strictly by the framework of the 1978 Rules. Although Rule 11 is a welfare provision, its unambiguous language restricts the 50% counting benefit to "whole-time" employees

The Court observed that a "spinning wheel of precedent" had been created by various benches implementing individual Government Orders without adhering to the primary law

Applying the principle that statutory rules override inconsistent judicial precedents, the Court determined that because the respondent was a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk, he failed to meet the "whole-time" criteria required by Rule 11(2) and 11(4)

The Court emphasized that the State cannot be precluded from challenging an order simply because it failed to appeal similar erroneous orders in the past

The Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the Writ Court dated 18.01.2024. It held that all prior judgments running counter to Rule 11 of the 1978 Rules have lost their status as precedents and cannot be followed for granting relief to Part-Time Panchayat Clerks. No costs were awarded.