Service as a Village Assistant from 1 June 1995 counts fully toward pension.

The petitioner was appointed as a Village Assistant on 5 October 1988. His service was brought into the regular time scale of pay under G.O. (Ms.) No. 625, Revenue Department, dated 6 July 1995. He later served as a Village Administrative Officer and retired on 30 April 2025.

In calculating his pension, only 50% of his Village Assistant service from 5 October 1988 to 1 June 1995 was counted. He sought recognition of that service and revision of his pension, relying on earlier decisions concerning Village Assistants whose services were brought into the regular time scale under the same Government Order.

The State did not dispute the cited decisions but requested that the matter be remitted for consideration.

1. Whether the petitioner’s Village Assistant service from 1 June 1995 to 19 September 2015, together with his service as a Village Administrative Officer, should be counted for pension purposes in light of the Division Bench decision in The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. K. Marimuthu.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the specific relief sought concerning 50% of his Village Assistant service before 1 June 1995.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s decision in The Additional Chief Secretary to Government v. K. Marimuthu, W.A. (MD) No. 1200 of 2025 and batch, dated 3 February 2026. As quoted by the Court, that decision held that the relevant Village Assistant service after 1 June 1995, together with service as a Village Administrative Officer, was to be counted for pensionary benefits; it also recorded the State’s submission that the Village Assistant service could not be termed “non-provincialised” service.

The Court also noted the earlier Single Judge decision in A. Andiyapillai v. Principal Secretary to Government, W.P. (MD) No. 10819 of 2022 and batch, dated 14 March 2024, upheld on appeal, and Velusamy v. Secretary to Government, W.P. (MD) No. 7689 of 2021, dated 24 February 2026.

The Court found the petitioner’s case factually identical to the Village Assistant cases considered by the Division Bench, including because his service had been brought into the regular time scale under G.O. (Ms.) No. 625. It therefore held that he could not be denied the pensionary treatment upheld in those proceedings.

The Court directed the respondents to count his service as a Village Assistant from 1 June 1995 to 19 September 2015, together with his service as a Village Administrative Officer. Although the petition sought recognition of 50% of service before 1 June 1995, the operative direction does not expressly grant or determine that claim.

The respondents were directed to issue fresh orders, and calculate and pay the resulting monetary benefits as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within eight weeks of receiving the order. The judgment does not expressly direct that the pre-1 June 1995 service be counted, notwithstanding the relief sought in the petition. No costs were awarded.