Past service cannot count toward old-pension benefits unless the employee was regularised before 1 April 2003.

The petitioner was appointed under a scheme in 1989 and served until 1997, but his services were not regularised.

After proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and a subsequent writ petition, the High Court set aside the rejection of his claim and directed reconsideration.

He was appointed on 23 September 2014, with the appointment order placing him under the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), effective from 1 April 2003.

After retiring in 2022, he sought minimum pension and other retirement benefits, contending that his service from 1989 to 1997 should count as qualifying service under G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25 August 2009.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on his 2014 appointment under the CPS.

1. Whether the petitioner’s service from 1989 to 1997 could be counted towards pensionary benefits under G.O.Ms.No.408, despite his services not having been regularised before 1 April 2003

2. Whether the petitioner could claim benefits under the old pension scheme after accepting an appointment expressly governed by the CPS and serving under those terms until retirement

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the jurisdiction invoked for the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus.

Under G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25 August 2009, the benefit of counting past service is available only to employees whose services were regularised before 1 April 2003.

The Court also applied the principle that an employee who accepts appointment terms specifying the applicable pension scheme and continues under those terms cannot later claim benefits under a different pension scheme on the basis of earlier service.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The petitioner was not regularised before 1 April 2003; he was appointed only on 23 September 2014. He therefore did not meet the eligibility condition for counting past service under G.O.Ms.No.408.

Further, his appointment order expressly placed him under the CPS, and he accepted that appointment and continued in service under its terms until retirement without challenging the scheme’s application. The Court held that he could not then rely on his 1989–1997 service to claim benefits under the old pension scheme.

It dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.