Retired BDO Can’t Count Part-Time Panchayat Clerk Service Toward Pension, Madras HC Follows Full Bench Ruling

The petitioner served as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk from 1 March 1979 to 20 February 1986, was appointed as a Junior Assistant from 21 February 1986, and retired as a Block Development Officer on 28 February 2016.

He sought to have 50% of his part-time service counted towards pension, relying on G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 and Division Bench decisions. The State opposed the claim under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the Full Bench decision in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy (2019) 6 CTC 705.

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules governs the counting of past service for pension; as explained by the Full Bench in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy, the benefit of counting 50% of past service applies to qualifying full-time service, not part-time service.

Rule 82 permits a department, with Finance Department concurrence and reasons recorded in writing, to relax the Pension Rules in a particular case to avoid undue hardship.

G.O.Ms.No.39 extended a 50% past-service benefit, while G.O.Ms.No.77 subsequently withdrew the benefit for part-time employees.

The Court followed the later Division Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram, which applied the Full Bench ruling and distinguished earlier Division Bench decisions.

The Court accepted that G.O.Ms.No.39, issued with Finance Department concurrence, could be viewed as a concession or relaxation, but held that the same Department withdrew that concession through G.O.Ms.No.77; accordingly, Rule 82 did not support the petitioner’s claim.

Although A. Duraisamy had treated the benefit as protected for employees whose rights had accrued under G.O.Ms.No.39, the Court considered that the earlier Division Benches had not been apprised of the binding Full Bench ruling. It therefore followed A. Chidambaram, which applied R. Kaliyamoorthy to hold that part-time service was not eligible for the 50% pension-counting benefit under Rule 11.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on the rule requiring a co-equal Bench to refer a disagreement to a larger Bench, but held that principle inapplicable because the later decision relied on the previously unconsidered Full Bench ruling.

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