Madras High Court

P. Ganesan vs The Secretary To Government on 13 October, 2025

Author: A.D. Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D. Jagadish Chandira

                                                                                   W.P. No.38320 of 2025

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                            DATED: 13.10.2025

                                                     CORAM:

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                           W.P. No.38320 of 2025

                1. P. Ganesan
                2. A. Murali
                3. T.Arumugam Pillai
                4. S.Punniyakoti
                5. A.Dilli
                6. B.Vijayakumar
                7. G.Shantharam
                8. V.Madhavan
                9. G.Jothi
                10.S.Malliga                                                        ... Petitioners
                                                         vs.


                1. The Secretary to Government
                   Housing and Urban Development
                   Department, Fort St.George,
                   Chennai 600 009.

                2. The Managing Director,
                   Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
                   TNHB Commercial Complex
                   (Pocket – 6),
                   1st main road, CIT Nagar,
                   Chennai 600 035.                                                … Respondents


                Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to calculate the

                1/9



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis          ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )
                                                                                         W.P. No.38320 of 2025

                petitioners pension by taking note of 50% services rendered as temporary
                employee till the petitioners regularisation and disburse by calculating the same
                from their retirement date together with arrears by taking note of order passed
                in W.P.No.11746 of 2014 dated 03.11.2017 confirmed by the Hon'ble Division
                Bench in W.A.No.1857 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022.

                                      For petitioner         : Mr.C.Prakasam

                                      For Respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan
                                                        Additional Government Pleader for R1
                                                        Mr.V.Logesh
                                                        Standing Counsel for R2
                                                       ------
                                                     ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

calculate the petitioners' pension by taking note of 50% of their service

rendered as temporary employees till their regularisation.

2. Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes

notice for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.Logesh, learned Standing Counsel takes

notice for the 2nd respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

3. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side,

this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The petitioners were appointed as Nominal Muster Roll Employees in

the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, during the years 1974-1988. During such

period, they were disbursed as non-provincialised service, consolidated pay,

honorarium or daily wages and subsequently, in the years 1980-1988, their

services were regularised by way of fixing time scale as per Government Order

in G.O.Ms.No.400, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated

02.05.1990 by giving retrospective effect from the year 1980, i.e., on

07.12.1988. Thereafter, the petitioners retired from service. However, their

50% of service was not taken into account for their pension.

5. Therefore, similarly placed persons approached this Court in

W.P.No.11746 of 2014 in which this Court, by an order dated 03.11.2017, held

as follows :-

5. The grievances advanced in this writ petition is the non-consideration of the amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, in respect of qualifying the services and the amended Rule is extracted hereunder:

Rule 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

QUALIFYING SERVICE

1."Commencement of qualifying service # {(1}) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he taken charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the case of a Government servant retiring on or after the 1st October. 1969,2{.....} temporary or officiating service in a pensionable post whether rendered in a regular capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service even it is not followed by confirmation.

(2) Half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards qualifying service for pension along with regular service subject to the following conditions:

service paid from contingencies shall be in a job involving whole time employment and not part time for a portion of the day.

● Service paid from contingencies shall be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, for example Chowkidar.

● Service shall be for which the payment is made out on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which, though not analogous to the regular scale of pay, shall bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishments.

● Service paid from contingencies shall be continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break.

● Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall be limited to the period after the 1st January 1961 for which authenticated records of service may be available.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

● Pension or revised pension admissible as the case shall be paid from the 23rd June 1988.]

[Half of the service rendered by State Government employee under non-pensionable establishment shall be allowed to be counted for pensionary benefits along with regular service under pensionable establishment subject to the following conditions.

(a) Service under non-pensionable establishment should have been in a job involving whole time employment.

(b) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been on time scale of pay.

(c) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been continuous and followed by absorption in pensionable establishment without a break.

(3) These orders shall take effect from the date of this Government Order. In respect of those who retired prior to the date of this order, eligible pension or revised pension, as the case may be, shall be paid from the date of this order, and that there can be no claim for arrears in any case for the period upto the date of this order.

Note: In the case of the employees of the former Pudukkottai State and persons transferred from the former Travancore- Cochin State consequent on the reorganisation of State temporary or officiating service rendered in a regular capacity under the former Pudukkottai State or the former Travancore- Cochin State shall count in full for purposes of pension:

Provided that-

(a) in the case of a Government Servant, service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity;

(b) in the case of a Government Servant whose year and month

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

of birth are known, but not the exact date the 16th of the month should be treated as the date of birth. When the year of birth is known but not the month and date 1st July if the year shall be taken.

(c) in the case of a Government Servant with no military service who gives on recruitment only his age, but not the year of his birth the year should be arrived at by deducting from the year of recruitment the given age and then the date of birth should be taken as the 1st July of that year:

Provided further that in the case of a Government servant with previous military service the date of birth is fixed as laid down below:

When a military employee is transferred to a civil department under the Government and assumes a civilian status, the date of birth to be entered in his service book should be the date stated by him at the time of attestation.

When the documents referring to the previous military service of an individual do not give the definite date of birth but only the age stated at the time of attestation, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of attestation e.g., if one ex-soldier was enrolled on 1st January 1910 and if, on that date, his age was stated to be 18, his date of birth should be taken as 1st January 1892. This procedure will apply to cases arising on or after 27th June 1938.

Notwithstanding anything contained above in cases where S.S.L.C. Or any other school certificate is available, the date of birth, as entered therein should be taken into account.

[Explanation.--For the purpose of date of birth, the word 'attestation' refers only to the initial records kept by the Defence Department at the time of appointment of the individual and not in the discharge certificate on discharge from the Defence Department.] '

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

6. While amending Rule 11(4)(iii), the Government imposed the cut-off date as 01.04.2003. It is stated that #Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break.

7. In view of the amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which was already adapted by the authorities concerned, the writ petitioners are eligible for counting of the half of the services rendered by them as casual labours, if they satisfy the conditions stipulated in the said amended Rules. If the writ petitioners fall within the categories mentioned under Rule 11 as well as the order of the competent authorities, then the writ petitioners case has to be considered.

8.In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to re- consider the case of the writ petitioners for counting half of the services rendered by them on consolidated pay, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and pass appropriate orders in this regard, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioners.

5. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondents filed Writ Appeal in

W.A.No.1857 of 2022 and the same was also dismissed by an Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 16.08.2022. The order passed by the

Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in SLP (C) No.20427 of 2022, by an order dated 25.11.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 02:50:59 pm )

6. Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the respondents have to verify

whether these petitioners are also similarly placed persons.

7. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to re-consider the

case of the petitioners for counting half of the services rendered by them on

consolidated pay, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,