[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Velusamy vs The Secretary To Government on 24 February, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.7689 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.7689 of 2021
Velusamy,
Village Administrative Officer (Retired)
No.2/255 North Street,
Kadanganeri Post,
Nettur Via,
Alangulam Taluk,
Tenkasi District – 627 854. ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Account General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 18.
3. The District Collector,
Tenkasi.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheranmagadevi.
5. The Tahsildar,
Ambasamuthiram Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
W.P.(MD).No.7689 of 2021
6. The Tahsildar,
Thiruvenkadam Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the pension payment order in No.P26/12629712/3/PPO
No.R2629712/VOÁ, dated 04.05.2020 of second respondent and quash the
same and further direct the second respondent to sanction pension by
calculating the net qualifying service from the date of regularization
01.06.1995 to date of retirement 29.02.2020 totally 25 years 9 months along
with 50% of the service by the petitioner rendered by the petitioner as Village
Assistant from 10.09.1985 to 31.05.1995 (4 years 6 months) as qualifying
pensionable period and further sanction pension within time frame fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen
For R1 & R3 to R6: Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : M/s.S.Mahalakshmi
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order
passed by the second respondent herein, wherein the request of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
for calculating his pensionable service from the year 1985, when he was
appointed as a Village Assistant on consolidated basis, was rejected.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
writ petitioner was appointed on 10.09.1985 as a Village Assistant on a
consolidated pay. Later, his services were regularized with effect from
01.06.1995 by way of G.O.(Ms)No.625, Revenue Department, dated
06.07.1995. The petitioner was later promoted as Village Administrative
Officer with effect from 09.08.2016. The petitioner attained superannuation
on 29.02.2020. These facts are not in dispute.
3. When the pension proposals were forwarded by the concerned
authority, the second respondent has not taken into consideration the period
served by the writ petitioner from 10.09.1985. The pensionable service was
calculated only from 09.08.2016, the date on which the petitioner was
promoted as a Village Administrative Officer. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the services of the petitioner as a Village Assistant on consolidated pay from
10.09.1985 should be calculated at the rate of 50% till the services were
regularized. After regularization from 01.06.1995, the entire service should be
taken into consideration till the date of superannuation, namely 29.02.2020,
for calculating the pensionable service.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied upon the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A(MD) Nos.1200 of 2026 batch
cases, dated 03.02.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
was pleased to dismiss the appeals holding that the services from 01.06.1995
till the date of superannuation have to be taken into account as pensionable
service.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents
submitted that the petitioner services were rendered in the non provisional
service between 01.06.1995 and 09.07.2016. Therefore, the services cannot
be taken into account and only 50% of the services can be taken into account
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
along with the full services as Village Administrative Officer. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. The issue now arises for consideration is whether the petitioner
would be entitled to calculate his pensionable service from the date of his
initial appointment dated 10.09.1985 for pensionable service or not. As far as
the services between 10.09.1985 and 31.05.1995 are concerned, the services
were on a consolidated pay. Since the services were rendered in on a
consolidated pay the said period cannot be taken into account for the purpose
of calculating pension. However, the petitioner's services were regularized as
Village Assistant with effect from 01.06.1995 by way of G.O.Ms.No. 625,
Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. In such circumstances, the services
regularized as Village Assistant cannot be ignored and can be treated as a non
provisional service and the department cannot calculate 50% of the said
services.
9. Paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in W.A(MD) Nos.1200 of 2026 batch cases, dated 03.02.2026 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
hereby extracted:
9. In view of the submission of Thiru.M.Ajmal
Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, on
instructions, from the Government, the service of the
Village Assistants from the date of the appointment could
not be termed as “non-provincialised” service, this
Court is inclined to hold that, in all subject matters of
these cases before this Court where a Village Assistant is
promoted as Village Administrative Officer, the
fullservice rendered as Village Assistant after 01.06.1995
as well as Village Administrative Officer shall be taken
into account for computing the pensionary benefits. In
view of the above finding that Village Assistant service is
not termed as non provincialised service, reliance of the
G.O.Ms.No.73 Revenue and Disaster management [Ser.
8(1)] Department, dated 13.02.2025, subject to the result
of these Writ Appeals need not be considered. Therefore,
the writ Court had correctly directed the Government to
reckon the writ petitioner's full regular service rendered
as a Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer
as qualifying service and this Court finds no merit in
these appeals and all the appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
10. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court on a similar issue , the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside.
The respondents are directed to calculate the service of the petitioner from
01.06.1995 till 29.02.2020 as a pensionable service and issue fresh orders.
The consequential monetary benefits shall also be released. The said exercise
shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
11. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
24.02.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Account General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 18.
3. The District Collector,
Tenkasi.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheranmagadevi.
5. The Tahsildar,
Ambasamuthiram Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District.
6. The Tahsildar,
Thiruvenkadam Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
24.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 11:33:06 am )
