Regularization after April 1, 2003, precludes application of Old Pension Scheme and counting of prior temporary services.

The petitioner was appointed as a Child Welfare Organiser on 01.07.1982 under the Integrated Child Development Service Scheme (ICDS).

On 05.03.2014, she was appointed to a sanctioned post as a Rural Welfare Officer/Supervisor Grade-II and her services were regularized.

She retired upon reaching superannuation on 31.05.2018.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Government Orders G.O.Ms. No. 41 (2010) and G.O.Ms. No. 34 (2013) to the extent they prevented her from counting 50% of her temporary service in the Noon Meal Programme Scheme toward her pensionary benefits.

1. Whether the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Old Pension Scheme) apply to employees whose services were regularized after the cut-off date of April 1, 2003.

2. Whether service rendered in a non-pensionable, scheme-based establishment (ICDS) qualifies for counting 50% of service under the pension rules.

The court applied Rule 1(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which contains a proviso stating that the rules do not apply to Government servants appointed on or after April 1, 2003, to services borne on pensionary establishments.

Rule 11(2)(i) regarding the requirements for qualifying service.

The principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4953-4957 of 1998, which categorized Anganwadi employees as honorarium workers rather than holders of civil posts.

The Court reasoned that the Old Pension Scheme is explicitly barred for any employee regularized after the 01.04.2003 cut-off date, at which point the Contributory Pension Scheme took effect.

Since the petitioner was only regularized in a sanctioned post on 05.03.2014, she fell outside the scope of the 1978 Rules.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s initial service was under a Central Government sponsored scheme (ICDS) where workers are classified as honorarium or part-time employees of local bodies, rather than regular Government servants in a pensionable establishment.

Consequently, the petitioner failed to meet the criteria of Rule 11(2)(i), as the post did not involve a regular time scale of pay or full-time employment within a pensionable department.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and the connected miscellaneous petition. No costs were awarded.