Retired Panchayat Clerk Cannot Count 50% Of Part-Time Service Toward Pension, Madras HC Holds Following Full Bench Ruling

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to count 50% of his past part-time service towards pension under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, in view of the Full Bench decision in R. Kaliyamoorthy.

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 March 1986 to 28 December 2000, was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 29 December 2000, and retired on 31 May 2022.

pp. 2–5

He sought to have 50% of his part-time service counted towards qualifying service for pension under G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011, notwithstanding its subsequent withdrawal by G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12 July 2013.

pp. 2–5

The State opposed the claim, relying on Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the Full Bench decision in Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Kaliyamoorthy [(2019) 6 CTC 705].

p. 5

02Issues

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

pp. 2–3, 6–8

ii.2. Whether earlier Division Bench decisions allowing such counting could govern the claim in light of the Full Bench ruling in R. Kaliyamoorthy and the subsequent Division Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram.

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

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 [(2019) 6 CTC 705], the benefit of counting 50% of past service is available to qualifying full-time service and not part-time service.

p. 5, 10, 12

Rule 82 permits relaxation of the Pension Rules in a particular case where its requirements cause undue hardship, subject to written reasons and the concurrence of the Finance Department.

p. 7

G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13 June 2011 extended the 50% benefit, while G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12 July 2013 withdrew it in respect of part-time employees.

pp. 6–8

The Court followed the Division Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Chidambaram, which applied the Full Bench ruling and treated it as controlling over contrary earlier Division Bench decisions.

pp. 9–10

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that G.O.Ms.No.39 had been issued with Finance Department concurrence and could be viewed as a concession or relaxation, but held that the concession was subsequently withdrawn by G.O.Ms.No.77; Rule 82 therefore did not sustain the petitioner’s claim.

pp. 7–8

Although earlier Division Benches had protected benefits said to have accrued under G.O.Ms.No.39, the Court considered that they had not been apprised of the Full Bench decision.

pp. 9–13

Following A. Chidambaram, which applied R. Kaliyamoorthy to the relevant Pension Rules, the Court held that the Full Bench’s rule concerning full-time service governed the petitioner’s part-time service claim.

pp. 9–13