Retired BDO Can’t Count Half of 8 Years’ Part-Time Panchayat Clerk Service Toward Pension, Madras HC Holds

In brief

The question

1. Whether 50% of the petitioner’s past part-time Panchayat service could be counted towards pension under G.O.Ms.No.39, notwithstanding its withdrawal by G.O.Ms.No.77.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner’s part-time service could not be counted towards pension under Rule 11, in light of the Full Bench ruling in R. Kaliyamoorthy and the Division Bench decision in A. Chidambaram.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner served as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 1 April 1978 to 18 February 1986, was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 19 February 1986, and retired as a Block Development Officer on 30 June 2008.

¶ 2, 2.1

He sought to have 50% of his part-time service counted for pension, relying on G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 and Division Bench decisions.

¶ 2, 2.1

The Government opposed the claim, relying on Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the Full Bench decision in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy.

¶ 4–5

The petition sought a direction to extend the benefit of the cited Division Bench orders.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether 50% of the petitioner’s past part-time Panchayat service could be counted towards pension under G.O.Ms.No.39, notwithstanding its withdrawal by G.O.Ms.No.77.

¶ 7–8

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s claim was barred by Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the Full Bench ruling in R. Kaliyamoorthy, as applied by the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram.

¶ 10, 12–14

03Law Applied

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules governs the counting of past service for pension; as stated in the judgment, the Full Bench in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy, (2019) 6 CTC 705, held that the benefit of counting 50% of past service was available to employees who had rendered full-time service, not part-time service.

¶ 5, 10, 12

Rule 82 permits a department, with Finance Department concurrence, to relax the Pension Rules in a particular case for recorded reasons; the Court treated G.O.Ms.No.39 as a concession but held that it was later withdrawn by G.O.Ms.No.77.

¶ 7–8

The Court followed the Division Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram, 2026:MHC:2486, which applied the Full Bench ruling and distinguished earlier Division Bench decisions, including The Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Duraisamy.

¶ 9–13

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that G.O.Ms.No.39 had extended a concession to count 50% of past service, but held that G.O.Ms.No.77 subsequently withdrew that concession; the petitioner therefore could not succeed on the basis of Rule 82.

¶ 7–8

Although earlier Division Benches had protected benefits said to have accrued under G.O.Ms.No.39, the Court considered that the Full Bench ruling in R. Kaliyamoorthy had not been brought to their attention.

¶ 9–13

It followed A. Chidambaram, which applied that Full Bench ruling and held that the relevant pension benefit did not extend to part-time service.

¶ 9–13

As a Single Judge, the Court considered itself bound by that Division Bench decision.

¶ 9–13