Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a claim by a former part-time Panchayat Clerk, S. Balakrishnan, who sought counting of 50% of his part-time service for pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. He filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, and a single judge allowed the petition on 18 January 2024, directing the State to extend the benefit. Aggrieved, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, contending that Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, permit counting of 50% of temporary service only for employees engaged in whole-time jobs, and that part-time service is explicitly excluded. While the appeal was pending, a coordinate Division Bench had already dealt with identical issues in a batch of cases, WA No.1569 of 2026 etc., and delivered a common judgment on 23 June 2026. That judgment thoroughly examined the scope of the Pension Rules and the precedents on the subject. It held that pension, though a constitutional right, remains circumscribed by the scheme of the Rules, and that Rule 11 is a welfare provision that allows counting of 50% of temporary service only for employees in whole-time employment. It further held that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality, and that erroneous orders passed in earlier cases cannot be used to compel similar relief. Crucially, it declared that all judgments and orders of Single Judges and Division Benches that were contrary to the Full Bench decisions of the High Court stood denuded of precedential value and could not be followed. The Division Bench in WA No.1569 of 2026 accordingly set aside a series of orders that had granted the benefit to part-time employees. In the present appeal, the Bench relied entirely on that binding precedent. It noted that the issue had been conclusively settled, and that the single judge's order dated 18.01.2024 was contrary to the legal position. Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order under challenge, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. No costs were awarded. The outcome reaffirmed that part-time service cannot be counted for pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and that judicial discipline requires adherence to Full Bench decisions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Counting of Temporary Service - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 11(2), 11(4) - Pension rules stipulate counting 50% of temporary service only for employees in whole-time jobs, not part-time; the benefit is additional and cannot be claimed for part-time service. Held that the benefit is strictly in accordance with the Rules (Para 26) B) Constitutional Law - Equality - Perpetuation of Illegality - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Article 14 cannot be invoked to compel a public authority to repeat an erroneous order; a wrong order does not create a right. Held that government orders implementing erroneous court orders cannot be used to claim similar relief (Para 29) C) Precedent - Binding Precedent - Full Bench Decisions - Judgments and orders contrary to Full Bench decisions are denuded of precedential value and cannot be followed. Held that Single Judge and Division Bench orders contrary to Full Bench judgments cannot be relied upon (Paras 30-31) D) Service Law - Pension - Part-Time Service - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 11(2), 11(4) - The Writ Court order extending 50% benefit for part-time Panchayat Clerk service was contrary to law; in view of the Division Bench judgment in WA No.1569 of 2026 etc. batch, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Held that part-time employees are not entitled to 50% service counting (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether 50% of service rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk can be counted for pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
Final Decision
The writ appeal was allowed. The order dated 18.01.2024 passed in W.P. No. 6490 of 2023 was set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Pension Rules count 50% temporary service only for full-time employees
- Part-time service not eligible
- Article 14 cannot perpetuate illegality
- Erroneous orders cannot be precedent
- Full Bench decisions binding
