[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Mani vs The Sate Of Tamilnadu on 13 March, 2026
WP No. 5030 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP No. 5030 of 2019
S.Mani,
Retired Deputy Block Development Officer,
S/o.Thiru.Singara Gounder,
Residing at No.6, Rotta Street,
Sembur village Vandavasi P.O and Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Sate of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-9.
2. Director of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagal Buildings,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Accountant General,
Accounts and Entitlement,
261, Anna salai, Nandhanam,
Chennai-18.
Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
WP No. 5030 of 2019
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to paragraph 4(b) of G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development Department
and Panchayat Raj, dated 12.07.2013 of the first respondent and quash the same
in so far relates to not counting 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner in
part time Panchayat Clerk along with regular service for the purpose of pension
and consequently directing the respondents to count 50% service rendered by
the petitioner in the post of Part Time Panchayat Clerk from 01.10.1980 till
14.11.1999, along with regular service from 15.11.1999 to 31.03.2018 for the
purpose of granting pension and other pensionery benefits.
For Petitioner: Mr.V.Ravikumar
For Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 and perused
the records.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the
respondents in not counting 50% of his service rendered as Part time Panchayat
Clerk along with regular service for the purpose of pension on the basis of
paragraph 4(b) of G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department (PA4), dated 12.07.2013 with a consequential direction to the
respondents to count 50% of his service rendered as Panchayat Clerk from
01.10.1980 to 14.11.1999 along with his regular service for the purpose of
granting pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he had joined service as
Panchayat Clerk on part time basis on 01.10.1980; that subsequently he was
posted as Panchayat Assistant on 01.01.1991 and thereafter promoted as Junior
Assistant on 15.11.1999 and subsequently, promoted as Assistant on 01.11.2007
and thereafter promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 01.08.2014;
and that after completing 38 years of service, he had retired from service on
31.03.2018.
4. The petitioner further contend that the Government by G.O.Ms.No.39,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (E5), dated 13.06.2011,
insofar as the Panchayat Assistant Grade I or Grade II whether worked as part
time or full time in the service of Panchayat on consolidated pay, if appointed
before 01.04.2003 as Junior Assistant in the Government, directed to count 50%
of their previous service for grant of pensionary benefits; that by virtue of the
above mentioned G.O, service of the petitioner as Panchayat Clerk during the
period form 01.10.1980 till he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 15.11.1999,
is required to be considered to an extent of 50% of the said period for granting
pensionary benefits; that the respondents however did not take into
consideration the service rendered by the petitioner on part time basis to an
extent of 50% of his service period while fixing his pensionary benefits on his
retirement from service on 31.03.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents rejected his
claim for inclusion of 50% of his service rendered as part time Panchayat Clerk
and thereafter as Panchayat Assistant till he was promoted as Junior Assistant on
15.11.1999 even though G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 specifically allowed
for extending the said benefit to Junior Assistants who were appointed before
01.04.2003.
6. The petitioner further contend that the respondents have denied the
benefit of counting of his part time service as Panchayat Clerk and Panchayat
Assistant on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013; that the aforesaid
G.O., by which the Government had restricted counting of service benefit
granted in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011, was quashed by this Court vide
order dated 30.06.2014 in W.P.No.32579 of 2013 and batch; that an appeal by
the State before the Division Bench in W.A.No.259 of 2016 there against was
also dismissed on 10.03.2016; and thus, the respondents could not and ought not
to have denied the petitioner the benefit of counting 50% of his service rendered
as Panchayat Clerk and Panchayat Assistant during the period from 01.10.1980
till 14.11.1999.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that on this Court quashing
G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013 particularly paragraph No.4(b) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
aforesaid G.O., in the above mentioned batch of writ petition, the
respondent/Government implemented the order of this Court in G.O.Ms.No.111,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (PA5), dated 14.03.2016;
and that not extending the said benefit to the petitioner even though the
petitioner had retired from service subsequently i.e., on 31.03.2018 would
amount to discrimination.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that this Court had considered the
aforesaid issue in number of writ petitions and allowed the said writ petitions
granting the benefit of counting part time service rendered by the petitioners
therein.
9. It is the further case of the petitioner that this Court by its order dated
31.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.889, 891 and 894 of 2023 following the full bench
decision in the Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Kaliamoorthy (2019 (6) CTC
705) batch of cases, allowed the said writ petitions and directed the respondents
to count half of the past service of the writ petitioners therein for pensionary
benefits.
10. The petitioner contends that he is similarly placed like the petitioners
in W.P.Nos.889, 891 and 894 of 2023 and batch and hence, he is also entitled for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
being granted for similar relief.
11. Counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondents are filed.
12. The respondents by the counter affidavit while not disputing the fact
of the petitioner being appointed as part time Panchayat clerk initially and
having joined duty on 01.10.1980, would however, contend that as per Rule 11
(2) of the Pension Rules, 1978, part time service can not be counted as
qualifying service for pension.
13. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the
Government in its orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 and
G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pay Cell), Department, dated 25.08.2009 to be ultra
vires and had issued G.O.(Rt).No.77, 12.07.2013 amending the orders in
G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 and as such the claim of the petitioner for
counting his part time service for grant of pensionary benefit cannot be acceded
to.
14. The respondents by the additional counter affidavit further contended
that Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, prevails over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
Government Orders and the said Rule clearly excludes the part time service
from being considered for pensionary benefits and only considers full time
employment for pensionary benefits; and thus the claim of the petitioner cannot
be accepted.
15. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance is placed on the
decision of this Court dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.39950 of 2025 by the
respondents.
16. I have taken note of the respective contentions of the learned counsel
appearing on either side.
17. At the outset, it is to be noted that the fact of the petitioner having
joined service as part time Panchayat Clerk on 01.10.1980 and thereafter getting
promoted as Junior Assistant on 15.11.1999, is not in dispute. Thus, the only
issue that requires to be considered is as to whether the service rendered by the
petitioner during the period from 01.10.1980 till 14.11.1999 is required to be
considered while granting pensionary benefits.
18. The Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 had
categorically stated that the persons who worked as Panchayat Assistants Grade
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
I or Grade II be it as full time or part time in the panchayat and if appointed to
the post of Junior Assistant in the Government before 01.04.2003, their past
service period of Panchayat Assistants Grade I or Grade II till their appointment
as Junior Assistant, to an extent of 50% of service period, will be considered for
grant of pensionary benefits.
19. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant
before 01.04.2003 i.e., 15.11.1999 thereby making him eligible for his past
service to be counted for pensionary benefits though only to an extent of 50% of
the said service period. Thus, the total service period put in by the petitioner as
Panchayat Clerk and Panchayat Assistant during the period from 01.10.1980 till
14.11.1999 being 19 years 1 month and 15 days, 50% of the said service period
is to be added to his regular service in the post of Junior Assistant commencing
from 16.11.1999 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018.
20. Though the respondents relying on G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013
and Rule 11 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, claimed that part time
service will not be eligible for being considered as qualifying service for
pension, firstly, it is to be noted that Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules putting restriction of part time service not being counted as qualifying
service was added by way of G.O.Ms.No.283, Finance (Pension) Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
dated 15.04.1996. The Government being fully aware of the Rule position had
issued G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 extending the benefit of counting of
past service, be it full time or part time.
21. Further, it is to be noted that, Rule 82 of the Pension Rules confers
powers on the Government to relax the requirement of the Rule to such extent
and subject to such exceptions and conditions, as it may consider necessary for
dealing the case with just and equitable manner.
22. Thus, the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 by the
Government is to be construed on exercising the power conferred under Rule
82. Once, the Government by exercising the power conferred under the Rules
issued a Government Order relaxing the vigour of any particular Rule, such
Government Order issued would have to be considered as issued under Article
166 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, useful reference may be made
to Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pournami Oil Mills and
others Vs. State of Kerala and Another (1986 Supp Supreme Court Cases
728).
23. Thus, the Government having issued the aforesaid G.Os, it is not open
for the respondents not to claim that G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 is issued
contrary to Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
24. Further it is also to be noted that when the Government sought to take
away the benefit conferred under G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011 by issuing
G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013 in particular paragraph no.4(b) there of,
whereby the counting of 50% of past service rendered as part time was sought
to be omitted / excluded, this Court by order dated 30.06.2014 in W.P.No.32579
of 2013 and batch, held that the said action is illegal; and that the said order
having been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal by the
State before the Division Bench in W.A.No.259 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016, it is
not open for the respondents to continue to agitate the same issue time and
again.
25. Further coordinate benches of this Court having taken a similar view
in the orders made in W.P.No.18996 of 2016, dated 28.09.2016, W.P.No.22943
of 2017 & etc. batch, dated 28.08.2017, W.P.No.11235 & 11236 of 2018, dated
28.04.2018 and W.P.Nos.889, 891 and 894 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the
respondents ought to have considered the representation submitted by the
petitioner on 07.06.2018, for granting pensionary benefits by counting 50% of
his past service rendered from 01.10.1980 till 14.11.1999 before being promoted
as Junior Assistant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
26. Though on behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed on the
decision of a coordinate bench of this Court dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.39950
of 2025 to contend that this Court in the aforesaid decision after referring to a
decision of the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.
(MD).No.1629 of 2018 batch, having held the grant of relief sought for by the
petitioner in the writ petition would amount to setting aside the pension Rules
without even challenge, it is to be noted that the facts considered in the
aforesaid decision are at variance with the facts under consideration in the
present writ petition.
27. The main distinguishing fact as considered in the aforesaid case, to
that of the facts in the present case is that the service of the petitioners therein
were regularised as Junior Assistant after 01.04.2003 and not before 01.04.2003
in order to claim the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 13.06.2011
28. The other aspect that requires consideration is even accepting that by
virtue of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the service rendered
as part time cannot be considered for grant of pensionary benefits as detailed
herein above, the Government having issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.39, dated
13.06.2011, specifying that the service rendered as part time or full time would
be considered to an extent of 50% of the period of service, it is to be considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
that the Government having relaxed the said prescription in respect of part time
Employees who were appointed as Junior Assistant before 01.04.2003.
29. Thus, taking note of the above aspect, the reliance placed by the
respondents on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this
Court in W.A.(MD).No.1629 of 2018 which is followed by a Coordinate bench
of this Court in its orders dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.39950 of 2025 is of no
assistance to advance the case of respondents. Since, the earlier decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.259 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016 had
dealt with counting of 50% of service rendered as part time / full time prior to
01.04.2003 and the said decision having been consistently followed by the
coordinate benches of this Court, this Court is of the view that since, the
petitioner is a similarly placed, he is entitled for being granted the relief.
30. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to count 50% of service rendered by the petitioner in the post of part
time Panchayat Clerk and Panchayat Assistant from from 01.10.1980 till
14.11.1999 along with his regular service with effect from 15.11.1999 for the
purpose of granting pensionary and other benefits. No costs.
13-03-2026
vum
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9
2.Director of Rural development
and panchayat Raj Department Panagal
Buildings No 1 Jeenis road, Saidapet
Chennai-15.
3.The District Collector
Collectorate Tiruvannamalai District
4.The Accountant General
Accounts and Entitlement 261,
Anna salai Nandhanam Chennai-18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
T.VINOD KUMAR J.
vum
Pre-Delivery Order made in
13-03-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
