Facts
The petitioner served as an assessor with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from 26 November 1995 to 16 September 2000.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3(a)After succeeding in a Teachers Recruitment Board selection, he joined the Education Department as a B.T. Assistant on 18 September 2000, with a one-day break in service.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3(a)On his retirement from the Education Department on 31 December 2017, the first respondent declined to count his Electricity Board service towards qualifying service for pension.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 3(b)He challenged that decision and sought pensionary recalculation.
Source reference: p. 1Issues
Whether the petitioner’s service with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board could be counted as qualifying service for calculating his pension for service in the Education Department.
Source reference: p. 1; pp. 2–3, para. 3(b)Whether the petitioner’s appointment to the Education Department was a continuation or transfer of his earlier service, rather than fresh employment.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 6Law Applied
The Court relied on Division Bench decisions in The State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Govindan, W.A.(MD) No. 1241 of 2022, decided 5 January 2026, and The State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Joseph Sebastian, W.A.(MD) No. 686 of 2022, decided 24 March 2025.
Source reference: pp. 3–8, paras. 4–5The former held that service with the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board was not “government service” for the purposes of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, where the employee was paid from the Board’s general account rather than the State Consolidated Fund or a local fund administered by the Government.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 4The latter applied the principle that benefits based on past service are not automatically available where an employee enters a new service through direct recruitment; transfer or migration between services must be established under applicable rules or specific Government orders.
Source reference: pp. 5–8, para. 5The judgment does not identify a specific rule entitling the petitioner to count his Electricity Board service.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner left the Electricity Board and entered the Education Department through a separate recruitment process.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 6His Education Department appointment was therefore new employment, not a continuation or transfer of his earlier service.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 6Applying the cited Division Bench decisions, the Court held that past service could not be counted merely because the petitioner had previously served in another organisation; the petitioner had not established a rule or legal precedent supporting the claimed pension credit.
Source reference: pp. 3–9, paras. 4–6Holding
The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that his Electricity Board service could not be counted towards qualifying service for his Education Department pension.
It dismissed the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Maritime Board Act, 19952
Original Court PDF
K.JEYARAJ PAUL,vsTHE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
