WP/38247/2026 of G.Savithri Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 1 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted, challenging the Proceedings dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, rejecting the claim of writ petitioner for revision of pension by adding 10 years of practice as a lawyer as qualifying services for enhancement of pension.

2. Admittedly, writ petitioner functioned as Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tiruvallur on ad-hoc basis. She was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 23.02.2002 and relieved from service on 25.04.2012. Petitioner claimed pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1978’). The benefit was denied. Thus, she approached the High Court and issues went upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and a judgment was delivered by the Apex Court on 13.08.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.8216-8222 of 2018. Thus, issues raised regarding the claim of pension and the nature of scheme under which such pension was granted are no more res integra. It would suffice if the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been read carefully. Additional point raised by the petitioner is that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.385, Home (Courts) Department, dated 20.07.2023 stating that the benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum weightage of ten years shall be given to direct recruits of Higher Judicial Services, who retired prior to 01.01.2016. Relying on the said clause, petitioner claims that 10 years of her practice at the Bar is to be added as qualifying services for re-fixation of pension and pensionary benefits.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that Government Order dated 20.07.2023 speaks only about direct recruits. Petitioner was appointed as a District Judge and posted at Fast Track Court. She has been given pension. Her pension was granted in pursuance to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, benefit of G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 20.07.2023 is to be extended to the petitioner.

4. Ms.V.Sasi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.A.R.Suresh, Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would contend that the eligibility for grant of pension under the Rules, 1978 had already been determined and petitioner is receiving compensation pension as admissible under the pension rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself distinguished between directly recruited appointees and ad-hoc appointees. Writ Petitioner was admittedly appointed on ad-hoc basis and served as Fast Track Court Judge for about 10 years. Since she had completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, the Supreme Court granted compensation pension after considering the service details, nature of appointment as well as the provisions applicable under the Rules, 1978. Therefore, the present claim is inadmissible and the order of rejection issued by the Government would also reiterate the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The benefit of number of years of practice at the Bar extended in G.O.Ms.No.385, 20.07.2023 is inapplicable to the case of writ petitioner, since she was appointed only on ad-hoc basis. Government has drawn a distinction between regularly appointed direct recruit District Judges and Judges appointed on ad-hoc basis. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately considered the right of the petitioner and granted compensation pension under Rule 38 of the Rules, 1978. The said pension was settled and petitioner is now receiving the compensation pension as admissible.

5. Let us now carefully consider the relevant portion of the judgment dated 13.08.2018 delivered by the Apex Court. In paragraph 36, the Supreme Court considered the pension rules and examined whether the ad-hoc judges are entitled for grant of pension. The relevant portion reads as under: “36. Now, we revert to 1978 Rules to find out as to whether the appellants were entitled for grant of pension. We have already noticed Rule 2, which provides for application of the rules to all Government servants appointed to Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments. We having already held that appellants were borne on pensionable establishment and they were not employed on contract basis, Rule 2 is clearly applicable on them. There is another category which is excepted from application of the rule - Rule 2(e), i.e. "persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund". In the present case, the appellants were not covered by any Contributory Provident Fund Scheme rather covered by General Provident Fund Scheme. The fact that appellants were covered by General Provident Fund Scheme is apparent from the materials brought on record. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) No. 24328-29 of 2015- Annexure P10 is a letter of Assistant Registrar,

High Court of Madras dated 17.10.2012 addressed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, which was on the subject "GPF-Final Closure applications of Selvi G. Savithri, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, (FTC III, Tiruvallur)- Discontinued from service on 25.04.2012- Particulars called for-Regarding…."

6. In paragraph 40 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “40. Chapter V of the Rules deals with "Classes of Pension and conditions governing their grant". Rule 32 deals with "Superannuation Pension". A Superannuation pension is granted to a Government servant entitled or compelled, by rule, to retire at a particular age. Rule 33 deals with Retiring pension, which provides that a retiring pension shall be granted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired, in advance of the age of compulsory retirement, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42. Rule 38(1) deals with Compensation pension. Rule 38(1) is as follows:- "38. Compensation pension:- (1) If a Government servant is selected for discharge owing to the abolition of his permanent post, he shall, unless he is appointed to another post, the conditions of which are deemed by the authority competent to discharge him to be at least equal to those of his own, have

the

option

-

(a) of taking compensation pension to which he may be entitled for the service he had rendered, or (b) of accepting another appointment on such pay as may be offered and continuing to count his previous service for pension."

7. In paragraph 47 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “47...in sub-rule (1) of Rule 38 can be said to be very much present in the present case. The appellants who worked for 10 years and were discontinued due to discontinuation of posts which were held by them, the equity and justice demands that they should also be given compensation pension. Thus, in the present case even if technically abolition of permanent post may not be involved but for doing complete justice, direction for giving compensation pension to the appellants is just and proper.”

8. Pertinently, in paragraph No.52, Delhi judicial service was considered and the Apex Court made a finding that “…” “52...It was the concession given by the Government of NCT of Delhi which was relied by this Court while issuing direction. Thus, benefit of the above case is not available to the appellants in the present case.”

9. In the concluding paragraph No.58, the Apex court granted relief to the appellant as under: “58. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow these appeals in the following manner:

(1) The judgment of the High Court dated 01.04.2015 is set aside and the Civil Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.

(2) The respondents are directed to sanction superannuation pension to appellants K. Anbazhagan and P.G. Rajagopal in accordance with 1978 Rules.

(3) The respondents are directed to sanction compensation pension to the appellants, namely, Selvi G. Savithri, R. Radha and A.S. Hassina.

(4) All the appellants are entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with 1978 Rules.

(5) The respondents are also directed to permit encashment of earned leave to the credit of the appellants subject to a maximum of 240 days.

(6) All above retiral benefits be computed and paid to the appellants within a period of two months from today. In the event payments are made after two months, the appellants shall be entitled for such payments alongwith the simple interest @ 7% per annum.

(7) The parties shall bear their own costs.”

10. In paragraph No.58 (3), the name of the writ petitioner has been specifically mentioned by stating that she is entitled for compensation pension. Supreme Court after considering the scope of the Pension Rules, service particulars of the ad-hoc Judges, including nature, terms and tenure of appointment held that writ petitioner herein (Selvi. G.Savithri) is entitled for compensation pension under Rule 38 of the Rules, 1978.

11. Let us now consider the scope of G.O.Ms.No.385, 20.07.2023. Clause IV (d) states that the benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum weightage of ten years shall be given to direct recruits of Higher Judicial Services, who retired prior to 01.01.2016.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra in unambiguous terms distinguished the appointment made to direct

recruitment and appointment made on ad-hoc basis. When the nature of appointment are distinguished and the eligibility for pension under the Rules, 1978 are also considered and decided, there is no scope to grant regular pension to the petitioner, who was appointed as ad-hoc Judge and served for about 10 years. The nature of pension for which the petitioner is eligible has been categorically decided. Now the petitioner at this length of time cannot turn around and claim regular pension on par with the directly recruited Judges, who retired from service. There is no avenue for re-adjudication of issues, since the scheme of pension under the Rules, 1978, has been elaborately considered in the said judgment.

13. Pension, though given the status of a right under the Constitution, still exist within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under the relevant rules. In the present case, it is the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The framework given under the Rules, is more of a welfare provision and as it stipulates compensation pension in the present case. Government has granted compensation pension in certain exceptional cases, where there is no scope for grant of regular pension. In the present case, entire issues relating to the eligibility for pension and the nature of pension for which the writ petitioner is eligible were determined and petitioner is receiving compensation pension.

14. Therefore, the present litigation is unnecessary and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-I) Department, The State of Tamil Nadusecretariat, chennai-09.

2. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, chennai.

3. The Assistant Registrar (Admn.II) High Court of Madras, chennai.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WP No. 38247 of 2026 01-10-2026