Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Ulaganathan on 6 October, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
2025:MHC:2309
W.A(MD).No.751 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 24.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD).No.751 of 2020
and
CMP(MD).No.4325 of 2020
1.The District Collector
Ramanathapuram District
2.The Tahsildar
Kamuthi Taluk
Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -09
(Respondent No.3 is suo motu impleaded
as per order of this Court dated 15.02.2018) ...Appellants/Respondents
Vs
Ulaganathan ...Respondent/Writ petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 15.02.2018 in WP(MD).No.433 of 2018.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mithun
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
W.A(MD).No.751 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The State has preferred the present writ appeal challenging the order
passed by the writ Court in WP(MD).No.433 of 2018 on 15.02.2018.
2.The respondent herein was initially appointed as a Thalayari on
30.09.1967 by the Deputy Thasildhar, Kamuthi and his service was
regularized w.e.f. 01.06.1995. He had attained superannuation on 31.08.2001.
These facts are not in dispute.
3.After retirement, the respondent has filed the above said writ petition
seeking a mandamus to revise his monthly pension based upon his
representation dated 21.06.2017.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that his services from 1967 to
31.05.1995 were not taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating
pensionable service.
5.The writ Court had allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground
that similarly placed retired Village Assistants are getting higher monthly
pension. The writ Court further found that in a number of decisions, half of
service rendered during the non-regularised period were directed to be taken
into account. The writ Court issued directions to revise the pension.
Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
6.According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants, the services of the petitioner between 30.09.1967 till
31.05.1995 are part time services. Therefore, 50% of the said service cannot
be taken into account. Only as per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1973, 50% of his past services have to be calculated. However, the
writ petitioner is governed by Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Pensions Rules.
In such circumstances, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 are not applicable to
him. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the material records.
8.A perusal of the Service Register of the respondent/writ petitioner
reveals that the petitioner who was working in the post of part time Village
Assistant from 30.09.1967 has been converted to full time Village Assistant
with effect from 01.06.1995 as per G.O.(Ms).No.625 Revenue Department
dated 06.07.1995. A perusal of the said Government Order reveals that all the
Village Assistants who were working as part time employees are converted to
full time employees and are brought under the time scale of pay with effect
from 01.06.1995.
9.The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.88, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department,dated 06.03.2019 wherein the the Tamil Nadu
Village Assistants Pension Rules has been notified with effect from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
01.06.1995. A perusal of the said pension rules reveals that it is applicable to
full time Village Assistant employed in the Revenue Department. Clause
IV(1) reveals that in computing the length of service for calculating of
pension and other benefits, full time service shall be reckoned as qualified
service. Therefore, it is clear that the part time services of the writ petitioner
rendered from 1967 to May 1995 cannot be reckoned as a qualifying services
for pensionable service as per Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules.
10.It is the contention of the respondent/writ petitioner that as per Rule
11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 50% of temporary services can be
reckoned for the purposes of pensionable service. A perusal of the said Rules
reveal that the temporary service can be reckoned only if it is a whole time
employment. Admittedly, the employment of the petitioner as a Village
Assistant was part time employment from 1967 to May 1995. Even assuming
that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are applicable to the writ petitioner, the
same would not in any way come to the rescue of the writ petitioner.
11.The writ Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner's
service between 1967 to May 1995 are part time services. Therefore, 50% of
the same cannot be reckoned for pensionable service. In such circumstances,
the order of the writ Court directing the State to revise the pension of the writ
petitioner is not legally sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
12.In view of the above said deliberations, the order of the writ Court
is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(C.V.K.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
06.10.2025.
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
msa
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
and
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 06:15:47 pm )
