Temporary appointment on a time scale does not make pre-regularisation service pensionable.

The petitioner was appointed as a ‘Vetti’ in Kanyakumari District in November 1975. His appointment was described as temporary and provided for pay in the scale fixed for ‘Vetti’ under the Tamil Nadu pattern.

His service was regularised with effect from 1 June 1995 under G.O.Ms.No.625, and he retired on 30 September 2007.

He sought to have his service from 1975 counted for pension.

After a direction in an earlier writ petition to consider his representation, the District Collector rejected his claim on 16 December 2019.

The petitioner challenged that rejection, arguing that he was a temporary, full-time employee on a time scale of pay and was distinguishable from part-time Village Assistants.

The respondents opposed the claim, including on grounds of delay and laches.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his service from his initial appointment in 1975 counted towards pensionary benefits, notwithstanding regularisation from 1 June 1995.

2. Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches, where the petitioner retired in 2007 but sought relief through a representation in 2015 and filed the present petition in 2021.

The Court considered the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, including the principle that qualifying service may commence from appointment in a temporary capacity, subject to the applicable rules.

It also considered G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 6 July 1995, which regularised Village Assistants with effect from 1 June 1995, and the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, which brought relevant categories of village servants, including ‘Vetti’, within their scope.

The Full Bench decision in A. Elangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that pre-1 June 1995 service as a part-time Village Assistant/Talayari could not be counted for pension where the post was not borne on a service or cadre; the Court treated that decision, together with State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Balachandran and C. Chellaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, as governing the claim.

Under C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, a representation, or an order directing its consideration, does not revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of action.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s appointment order described his appointment as temporary and provided for a time scale of pay, but found that this did not warrant a different result from the governing Full Bench decision.

The petitioner was appointed in 1975 under the Tamil Nadu pattern, and the 1980 Rules subsequently brought the relevant category of village servants within their scope; his reliance on the States Reorganisation Act was therefore unavailing.

The Court held that the Full Bench ruling and subsequent Division Bench decision foreclosed the requested counting of pre-regularisation service, notwithstanding the petitioner’s reliance on Raman Nair and his asserted distinction from part-time appointees.

Independently, the claim was stale: the petitioner retired in 2007, made his representation in 2015, and approached the Court in 2021. The earlier direction to consider the representation did not create a fresh cause of action.

It declined to interfere with the District Collector’s order dated 16 December 2019 and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.