Part-time service cannot be counted toward pension where statutory rules require whole-time employment.

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time writer in Vellamadi Panchayat Union on 1 September 1965 and was subsequently appointed as a Junior Assistant on 27 December 1990. She was promoted as an Assistant in 2000 and retired on superannuation on 31 July 2004, receiving pension of ₹4,581 per month.

She claimed that 50% of her part-time service from 1 September 1965 to 28 December 1990 should be counted along with her regular service for calculating pension, relying principally on G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 and the Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1111 of 2016.

The Block Development Officer rejected her claim by order dated 12 June 2023, treating her earlier service as part-time service that could not qualify for pensionary benefits.

She therefore filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection order and consequential pensionary benefits.

1. Whether 50% of the petitioner’s service as a part-time writer could be counted as qualifying service for pension under G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 and the judgment in W.A.No.1111 of 2016?

2. Whether the statutory restriction under Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which permits counting of half of contingency-paid service only where the employment involves whole-time service and not part-time service, prevails over the contrary executive order?

3. Whether the rejection order was liable to be quashed despite the authority having relied on G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12 July 2013, which had been set aside to the extent that it denied the benefit to part-time employees?

The Court applied Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, under which half of contingency-paid service may count towards qualifying service only if, among other conditions, the employment involved whole-time work and was not part-time.

The Court held that a statutory rule prevails over an inconsistent executive instruction such as G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011.

Although G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12 July 2013 was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1111 of 2016 to the extent that it denied counting of 50% service to part-time employees, the Court relied on The State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram, 2026:MHC:2486, which held that the pension rules permit counting of 50% of temporary or contingency-paid service only where the underlying employment is whole-time and not part-time.

Pensionary benefits remain governed by the statutory framework of the Pension Rules.

The petitioner’s own pleadings described her prior appointment as that of a part-time writer, and she produced no material establishing that, notwithstanding the designation, she had actually performed whole-time service.

Rule 11(2)(i) expressly excludes service involving part-time employment from the benefit of counting half of the prior service.

Accordingly, the Court held that G.O.Ms.No.39 could not override the statutory rule.

Although the authority’s reliance on G.O.Ms.No.77 was technically erroneous because that Government Order had been quashed to the relevant extent, the authority had nevertheless reached the correct result—namely, rejection of the pension claim—when tested against Rule 11(2) and the binding reasoning in A. Chidambaram.

The rejection order dated 12 June 2023 was therefore confirmed, although the Court modified the reasoning by substituting Rule 11(2) for the erroneous reliance on G.O.Ms.No.77.

The writ petition was dismissed without costs.