Madras High Court
S.Sadasivam vs The Principal Secretary / on 3 September, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD) No.13878 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.13878 of 2021
S.Sadasivam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary /
State Tax Commissioner
Commercial Tax Department
Ezhilagam, Cheupauk, Chennai-5
2.The Joint Commissioner (ST)
(Intelligence)
Commercial Tax Department
Trichy Division, Trichy
3.The Joint Director
Handloom and Textile Weavers,
Thittasalai, Near Thirumalai School
Venkamedu Post, Karur District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order
passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in RC 829/2021 A6 dated
_______________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.13878 of 2021
30.04.2021 and quash the same and consequently directing respondents to
grant monthly pension under the old pension scheme.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is
entitled to be included under the Old Pension Scheme and whether the
petitioner's service in Chinthalavadi Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society,
Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District, wherefrom he was relieved from service on
26.05.2004, can be treated as a service rendered in (a) non-provincialised
service, (b) consolidated pay, (c) honorarium or (d) daily wage basis.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his name is to be included in
the Old Pension Scheme, since he was earlier working as a Clerk appointed
through employment exchange seniority basis in the office of Chinthalavadi
Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District, on
13.07.1987 and his services were regularized in the said Society with effect
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
from 15.08.1988 and thereafter, he was also promoted to the post of Manager
on 26.05.2004. Since the said Society was dissolved due to financial loss, the
petitioner was relieved from service on 26.05.2004 after completion of sixteen
years of service in the said Society.
3. According to the petitioner, based on his employment exchange
seniority, he was called for interview for appointment to the post of Typist and
the appointment order was issued on 28.12.2007 by the District Collector,
Karur, under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
The petitioner also claims that he wrote the Special Recruitment Test
conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 11.11.2010 and
passed the same and his services were regularized and thereafter, he was
promoted to the post of Deputy Tax Officer with effect from 17.10.2017 and he
retired from service on 31.07.2022.
4. The petitioner claims that having completed, in all, 28 ½ years
of Government service, his name is to be included in the Old Pension Scheme
and sanction for monthly pension is to be granted in his favour. He gave a
representation on 29.01.2021 for the aforementioned purpose. But, the same
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
has been rejected by the second respondent under the impugned order dated
30.04.2021, based on the Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy,
rendered in W.A.No.158 of 2016, dated 03.12.2019, and reported in 2019 (6)
CTC 705.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on
behalf of the other respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. The
respondents contend that the petitioner is not eligible to come under the Old
Pension Scheme for the following reasons:
(a) The petitioner was relieved from service from a Society
on 26.05.2004, which does not fall under anyone of
the categories of (a) non-provincialised service, (b)
consolidated pay, (c) honorarium or (d) daily wage
basis.
(b) The petitioner falls under Category (i) and Category (iv)
(guidelines) stipulated by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of the Government of Tamil Nadu and
others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy, rendered in W.A.No.158
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
of 2016, dated 03.12.2019, and reported in 2019 (6)
CTC 705.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention
that the petitioner's service in the Society is a non-provincialised service, has
relied upon the following authorities:
(i) A decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court
in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and
another vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1272.
(ii) A decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Kumar Joshi vs. Akash Tripathi and
others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1095.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would reiterate the contents of the counter filed
in this writ petition. He would submit as follows:
(a) The petitioner is not entitled for inclusion of his name
under the Old Pension Scheme, since the service
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
rendered by him previously in a Society is not falling
under anyone of the categories of (a) non-
provincialised service, (b) consolidated pay, (c)
honorarium or (d) daily wage basis.
(b) The petitioner was relieved from service from the
Society as early as on 26.05.2004 and the subsequent
appointment was based on his employment exchange
seniority on 04.01.2008 is a fresh appointment as a
Typist and it is under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules, whereas, the
petitioner's earlier employment in the Society was as
per the by-laws of the Society.
(c) The Full Bench decision makes it clear that the
petitioner is not eligible to include his name under the
Old Pension Scheme.
Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that only in accordance with law, the respondents
have rightly rejected the petitioner's request for including his name under the
Old Pension Scheme.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, there has been a gap in service
between the date when the petitioner was relieved from service in the Society
and the date when the petitioner obtained fresh employment based on his
employment exchange seniority. The petitioner was relieved from service from
the Society on 26.05.2004, whereas, he obtained fresh employment only on
04.01.2008 based on his employment exchange seniority. A categorical
assertion has been made by the respondents that the petitioner's service
rendered in the Society does not fall under anyone of the categories as laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil
Nadu and others vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy, rendered in W.A.No.158 of 2016,
dated 03.12.2019, and reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705. The Full Bench, as in
the operative portion of its Judgment, has issued directions with regard to the
applicability of the Old Pension Scheme to the Government servants and the
directions are re-produced hereunder:
“(i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003
are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.
259 dated 06.08.2003.
(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior
to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis
in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension
as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
(iii) In case, a government employee/servant had also
rendered service in non-provincialised service, or on
consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis
and if such services were regularised before
01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be
counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary
benefits.
(iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the
aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and
later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and
absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not
be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
pension.
(v) Those government servants who were appointed in the
aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were
absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be
entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose
of determination of qualifying service for pension."
9. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner's earlier service
in the Society was not an appointment made under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
State and Subordinate Service Rules. Only the subsequent employment of the
petitioner was made under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Service Rules. The Full Bench Judgment has made it clear in its direction No.
(i) that those, who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003, are not
entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 06.08.2003. Direction No.(iv) also
makes it clear that those Government servants, who were appointed under
anyone of the four categories, namely, (a) non-provincialised service, (b)
consolidated pay, (c) honorarium or (d) daily wage basis, alone are entitled to
come under the Old Pension Scheme, if their later appointment was made
under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, to
count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying
service for pension.
10. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner's service in the
Society, wherefrom he was relieved from service, is a non-provincialised
service, does not have any bearing for the facts and circumstances of the
instant case.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
11. In the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to supra, namely, State of
Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1272 and Vijay Kumar Joshi vs. Akash Tripathi and others,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1095, where the Government servants were
absorbed in the same service and in the same Department and there was no
break of service. But, in the instant case on hand, the petitioner was relieved
from service in the Society and after a long break of three years, he has
obtained fresh employment based on his employment exchange seniority. A
categorical assertion has also been made by the respondents that the
petitioner's service in the Society does not fall under anyone of the categories,
which makes the petitioner eligible to come under the Old Pension Scheme,
namely, (a) non-provincialised service, (b) consolidated pay, (c) honorarium or
(d) daily wage basis. The petitioner is also not able to establish that he falls
under anyone of these four categories to make him eligible to come under the
Old Pension Scheme.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's request for including
his name in the Old Pension Scheme under the impugned order dated
30.04.2021, based on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court,
referred to supra.
13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the
dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to apply for any
other benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which the petitioner
is legally entitled to. No costs.
03.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Principal Secretary /
State Tax Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department,
Ezhilagam, Cheupauk,
Chennai-5.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
2.The Joint Commissioner (ST),
(Intelligence),
Commercial Tax Department,
Trichy Division, Trichy.
3.The Joint Director,
Handloom and Textile Weavers,
Thittasalai, Near Thirumalai School,
Venkamedu Post,
Karur District.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
03.09.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 06:03:37 pm )
