Village Assistants cannot count pre-regularisation service toward pensionary qualifying service.

The original petitioner was engaged as a Vettian before being brought into the time scale and cadre of Village Assistant with effect from 1 June 1995. On his retirement in 2015, the Accountant General calculated his qualifying service as 19 years, 9 months and 13 days, excluding his pre-1995 service. He challenged the pension orders, seeking credit for half of his service before 1 June 1995 and disputing the calculation of his post-1995 service.

After his death, his legal representatives were substituted. The petition was opposed on the basis of a Full Bench decision holding that pre-1995 service as a Village Assistant/Thalayari could not be counted for pension.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to count 50% of his service before 1 June 1995 towards qualifying service for pension.

Whether the Department’s calculation of 19 years, 9 months and 13 days of qualifying service was incorrect, and whether the petitioner had completed 20 years.

The Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 govern Village Assistants; the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not apply to their service.

Applying Rule 4(a) of the 1995 Rules and the Full Bench ruling in A. Elangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 (3) CTC 1, the Court held that Village Assistants/Thalayaris employed before 1 June 1995 could not count 50% of that pre-regularisation service for pension because the posts were part-time and not borne on a service cadre.

The Court also relied on the subsequent Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 17 of 2022, decided 2 September 2026. It treated the cited Supreme Court order in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 15406 of 2021 as laying down no applicable ratio.

Although the petitioner had been selected and had served before 1 June 1995, the Court found that he entered the time scale and the Village Assistant cadre only from that date; the earlier post was not shown to be a cadre post.

The Full Bench ruling therefore governed, and the petitioner could not add half of his pre-1995 service to his qualifying service. The Court declined to follow the earlier single-judge decision relied on by the petitioner because the later Full Bench ruling controlled the issue.

However, it did not determine the separate arithmetic contention that the petitioner had completed 20 years of service; it left that claim for consideration on representation.

The Court granted the legal representatives liberty to represent to the Department regarding the alleged error in calculating qualifying service as 19 years, 9 months and 13 days. The Department was directed to consider any such representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of receipt.

No costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.