Regularization after April 1, 2003, mandates the Contributory Pension Scheme over the Old Pension Scheme.

The petitioners were originally engaged as temporary employees before being ousted from service in 2000.

Subsequently, following a court order, they were re-appointed on a regular basis on September 10, 2004.

Challenges were raised against the 4th Respondent's proceedings dated February 21, 2025, which ordered the cessation of General Provident Fund (GPF) subscriptions.

The petitioners sought to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) rather than the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), arguing that their initial temporary engagement predated the 2003 cut-off and that GPF contributions had already been collected from them.

1. Whether employees regularized after April 1, 2003, are entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978) based on prior temporary service.

2. Whether the opening of a GPF account and collection of subscriptions for temporary employees grants a right to remain under the Old Pension Scheme after the implementation of the Contributory Pension Scheme.

The court applied the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates that the rules do not apply to government servants appointed on or after April 1, 2003.

It further relied on the Division Bench precedent in P. Jayakumari v. State (2024), which clarifies that only those regularly appointed into service before the cut-off date are eligible for the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of prior temporary service under Rule 10(a)(i).

The court also noted that high court circulars mentioning "pensionary benefits" for temporary staff must be interpreted in the context of the CPS for post-2003 appointees.

The court reasoned that the petitioners' regularization occurred on September 10, 2004, which is significantly after the April 1, 2003, cut-off date for the Old Pension Scheme.

The bench observed that the petitioners had accepted their date of regularization and had continued in service for many years without challenge.

The court held that the mere administrative act of opening a GPF account or collecting subscriptions did not override the statutory cut-off date, especially since the petitioners were re-appointed only in 2004 after being ousted in 2000.

Furthermore, the court clarified that judicial ministerial service circulars regarding pension benefits must be read harmoniously with the CPS for those regularized after 2003.

The court found no infirmity in the impugned proceedings stopping GPF subscriptions; however, it directed the respondents to adjust any erroneous contributions collected and noted that if any administrative errors were made in favor of other similarly placed persons, the authorities should rectify such errors following the established rules.