Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to the claim of a former Part-Time Panchayat Clerk for counting 50% of his service for pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The respondent, R. Rajendran, had served as a Part-Time Panchayat Clerk and sought that 50% of that service be treated as temporary service for calculation of pension. The single judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.6485 of 2023 allowed his claim, directing the State to extend the benefit. The State of Tamil Nadu, aggrieved by this order, filed an intra-court writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. During the pendency of the appeal, a Division Bench of the same High Court in a batch of similar appeals (W.A.No.1569 of 2026 etc.) delivered a common judgment on 23.06.2026, settling the legal position. The Division Bench had held that Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 unambiguously provide that the benefit of counting 50% of temporary service along with regular service is available only to employees who were in a whole-time job, and not to part-time employees such as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks. Relying on Full Bench decisions of the Madras High Court, the Division Bench further declared that prior single judge and Division Bench orders that allowed such benefits for part-time service were contrary to the Rules and the Full Bench rulings, and therefore such decisions had lost their precedential value. The court emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality, and a wrong order passed in one case cannot compel a public authority to pass similar orders in other cases. The State’s counsel in the present appeal placed heavy reliance on this common judgment and urged that the appeal be allowed. The respondent’s counsel was heard and the court found that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the single judge dated 18.01.2024 was set aside, and it was held that the respondent was not entitled to counting of 50% of his part-time service for pension. The decision reaffirms that pension, though a constitutional right, is structured within the framework of the statutory rules, and the specific language of Rule 11 excludes part-time employees. By extending the ratio of the batch judgment, the court ensured consistency and prevented the perpetuation of orders that were inconsistent with the law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law – Pension – Counting 50% of Temporary Service – Part-Time Employees – Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 11(2) and 11(4) – The court held that the benefit of counting 50% of temporary service along with regular service is confined to employees who served in a whole-time job and does not extend to part-time employees such as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks; the court further held that single judge and Division Bench orders that are contrary to the unambiguous language of Rule 11 and to Full Bench decisions lose their precedential value and cannot be relied upon, and Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality (Paras 2-3, 26-32).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the benefit of counting 50% of service rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk as temporary service under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 can be extended to part-time employees for pensionary benefits, and whether earlier contrary orders can be treated as binding precedents
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the Writ Court dated 18.01.2024 in W.P.No.6485 of 2023 is set aside. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Pension is deferred wage and a right under the Rules
- but it operates within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
- 1978
- Rule 11(2) and 11(4) limit counting of 50% temporary service to employees in whole-time jobs
- not part-time jobs
- Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality
- orders and judgments contrary to the Pension Rules and Full Bench decisions lose their precedential value
