Madras High Court
Chandrashekaran vs The Assistant Account Officer on 18 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No.3281 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No.3281of 2025
And
CMP.No. 22573 of 2025
Chandrashekaran ..Appellant
Vs
1.The Assistant Account Officer,
Office of the Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlement)
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai
2.The Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare and Women's Rights,
Saidapet,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Krishnagiri District.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
W.A No.3281 of 2025
4.The Block Development Officer,
Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
5.District Social Welfare Officer,
Krishnagiri District. ..Respondent
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 01.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 4145 of 2023.
For Appellant: Mr. AR. Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Spl.GP – R2, R3
& R5
Mr.E.Vijay Anand, AGP - R4
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 01.04.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4145 of 2023. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge did not accede to the request of the appellant-
writ petitioner that his wife was entitled to pension under the Old Pension
Scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
2. The appellant contends that his wife was appointed as a Balasevika
vide order dated 01.03.1980, and was subsequently promoted as Panchayat
Union Welfare Officer on 19.04.2007 and as Superintendent Grade-I on
03.06.2013. She passed away on 10.11.2020. It is therefore contended that she
was entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The writ petitioner
submitted a representation to the Block Development Officer informing him of
his wife’s death and enclosing the relevant documents. As his request was not
considered, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing the
aforesaid writ petition.
3. Before the writ court, the respondent-State filed a counter affidavit
stating that, as per the revised Pension Rules, the appellant’s wife was not
eligible for pension under the GPF Scheme. It was submitted that the
petitioner’s wife was initially appointed as a Balasevika under a special time
scale of pay, and that the cadre of Balasevika does not fall under the GPF
Scheme, as there is no provision or mechanism to recover GPF contributions
from persons serving under the special time scale of pay. The learned Single
Judge, after considering the above, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the date of initial
appointment of the appellant’s wife, i.e., 07.03.1980, is the determinative factor
for deciding the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme, notwithstanding the
fact that she was absorbed into the regular time scale of pay only on
28.05.2007. It was thus contended that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the appellant’s wife was absorbed into the regular
time scale of pay only on 28.05.2007, and therefore she is not entitled to
pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, as the Old Pension Scheme
is not applicable to employees appointed after 01.04.2003. It was further
submitted that, since the appellant’s wife had not made any contribution
towards GPF, she is not entitled to the relief sought, and therefore the learned
Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, which does not warrant
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
6. The submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and the
materials placed on record have been duly considered.
7. Admittedly, the appellant’s wife was appointed as a Balasevika in the
year 1980 and was extended the benefit of a special time scale of pay. She was
subsequently absorbed as a Panchayat Union Women Welfare Officer on
19.04.2007 and was placed on the regular time scale of pay. Since she entered
regular time scale service only after 01.04.2003, she is not entitled to pension
under the GPF Scheme. The learned Single Judge, referring to the same, rightly
held that Government servants appointed after 01.04.2003 are eligible only for
the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) and are not entitled to benefits under
the Old Pension Scheme.
8. In the absence of any statutory provision extending benefits under the
Old Pension Scheme to employees similarly situated, the claim of the petitioner
is untenable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the appellant’s
claim. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
18.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare and Women's Rights,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4.District Social Welfare Officer,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
