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

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging a Writ Court order dated January 18, 2024, in W.P. No. 6491 of 2023.

The Writ Court had directed the appellants to extend the benefit of counting 50% of the service rendered by the respondent (M. Chandrasekar) as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

The State contended that this direction was inconsistent with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and recent judicial precedents.

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

2. Whether judicial precedents or Government Orders that run counter to statutory Pension Rules can be followed to grant relief for part-time service.

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that the benefit of counting 50% of temporary service is restricted to "whole-time" employment and expressly excludes "part-time" jobs.

Principles settled by the Full Bench in P.L.S. Palaniappan, which established that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or compel a public authority to repeat an erroneous order.

Ratio from the Division Bench judgment in WA No. 1569 of 2026 (batch), which held that part-time service cannot be used as a ladder for pensionary claims.

The Court reasoned that pension is a deferred portion of wages existing within the framework of the 1978 Rules, and Rule 11—being a welfare provision—must be interpreted strictly according to its unambiguous terms.

The Court observed that many prior orders granting such relief were "running counter to the Pension Rules" and were based on implementing individual court orders rather than actual law.

Relying on the Full Bench's stance against perpetuating illegality, the Court held that even if the State had implemented wrong orders in the past, it was not precluded from challenging similar erroneous orders in the present.

The Court concluded that any judgment or Government Order contrary to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the 1978 Rules loses its status as a precedent regarding part-time service.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Writ Court dated January 18, 2024, in W.P. No. 6491 of 2023 was set aside. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.