WP/22273/2022 of G.Selvaraj Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu on 12 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction minimum pension of Rs.7,850/- along with Dearness Allowance, with effect from 01.05.2022, DCRG, surrender leave salary and other retirement benefits, by taking 12 years and one month as qualifying service, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally appointed in the year 1989 and continued in service until 1997. Since his services were not regularised, the petitioner was constrained to file an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the respondent considered and rejected his claim, which was subsequently challenged before this Court in W.P.No.4007 of 2003. By order dated 06.10.2009, this Court held that the petitioner could not be treated indiscriminately, set aside the order of rejection and directed the respondent to reconsider his case.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2009, the second respondent forwarded a proposal to the first respondent on 14.08.2013. Thereafter, the first respondent recommended the appointment of the petitioner, and he was appointed on 23.09.2014.

WP No. 22273 of 2022

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, since the petitioner was appointed on 23.09.2014, his past service from 1989 to 1997 ought to be taken into consideration for calculating his pensionary benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his pensionary benefits on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in appointing and regularising his services. Hence, he prays that the writ petition be allowed.

5. The above contentions are strongly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. He would contend that the petitioner was originally appointed under a scheme and that he did not continue under the said scheme after 1997. However, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, he was appointed on 23.09.2014. It is further submitted that the appointment order specifically brought the petitioner under the Contributory Pension Scheme. Having accepted the terms of the appointment and continued in service until his retirement in 2022, the petitioner cannot now turn around and seek pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme, particularly when he had not served in a pensionable establishment. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent reiterates the above submissions.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

WP No. 22273 of 2022

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 23.09.2014 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4007 of 2003, dated 06.10.2009. On a perusal of the appointment order dated 23.09.2014, it is specifically stated that the petitioner was brought under the Contributory Pension Scheme, which came into effect from 01.04.2003.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the petitioner’s submission that, since he had served from 1989 to 1997, his past service ought to be taken into account in terms of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009.

9. On a consideration of the above Government Order, it is evident that the benefit of counting past service is available only to those employees whose services were regularised prior to 01.04.2003. In the case on hand, the petitioner was not regularised prior to the said date. On the contrary, he was appointed only on 23.09.2014, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

10. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the appointment order specifically stipulates that the petitioner would be governed by the Contributory Pension Scheme. The petitioner accepted the said appointment and continued in service under those terms for more than a decade, without challenging the applicability of the said scheme. Having accepted the terms of appointment and retired from service in 2022, the petitioner cannot now seek to claim pensionary benefits under the old pension

WP No. 22273 of 2022

scheme by relying upon the past service rendered between 1989 and 1997.

11. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the claim of the petitioner for counting his past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 12-10-2026 [1/2] Index: Yes Speakingorder Neutral Citation: Yes JRS To

1. The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water supplies Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09

2. The Commissioner of Municipal administration, 3, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai

3. The Commissioner, Salem Corporation, Salem

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

WP No. 22273 of 2022

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS WP No. 22273 of 2022 12-10-2026