Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Thalaiyari/Village Assistant on 26 September 1983.
Source reference: no citationUnder G.O. (Ms.) No. 625, Revenue Department, dated 6 July 1995, his service was brought into the regular time scale of pay.
Source reference: no citationHe served as Village Assistant until his promotion to Office Assistant on 9 August 2018 and retired on 31 July 2019.
Source reference: p. 3In calculating his pension, the Accountant General counted only 50% of his Village Assistant service from 1 June 1995.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The petitioner challenged the pension proceedings dated 1 August 2019 and sought full credit for that service.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The respondents contended that placement in the time scale did not amount to regular appointment, but did not dispute the precedents relied upon by the petitioner.
Source reference: pp. 3, 5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s Village Assistant service from 1 June 1995 to 9 August 2018 was to be counted in full for pension calculation
Source reference: pp. 3, 72. Whether the pension proceedings dated 1 August 2019 should be quashed and the respondents directed to recalculate the petitioner’s pension
Source reference: pp. 2, 7–8Law Applied
The Court applied the Division Bench ruling in The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. K. Marimuthu, W.A. (MD) No. 1200 of 2025 and batch, dated 3 February 2026.
Source reference: pp. 5–6That ruling held that Village Assistant service after 1 June 1995 was not “non-provincialised” service and was to be counted in full for pensionary benefits.
Source reference: pp. 5–6The Court also noted the related decisions in N. Andiyapillai v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Velusamy v. The Secretary to Government.
Source reference: pp. 4–5No statutory provision was separately identified as the basis of decision.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found the petitioner’s case factually identical to the cases considered by the Division Bench: his Village Assistant service had been brought into the regular time scale under G.O. (Ms.) No. 625, and the respondents’ position that this did not constitute regular appointment had been addressed in the precedent.
Source reference: pp. 6–7Applying that ruling, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his full Village Assistant service counted, together with his subsequent Office Assistant service, for pension calculation.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the pension proceedings dated 1 August 2019, and directed the respondents to count the petitioner’s service as Village Assistant from 1 June 1995 to 9 August 2018, together with his Office Assistant service, recalculate his pension, and pay the resulting monetary benefits within eight weeks of receiving the order.
No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
MANOHARANvsTHE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
