WP/31569/2023 of K.V.SHYAMALA Vs THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL on 10 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner joined as a part-time writer in Vellamadi Panchayat Union on 01.09.1965. While so, she was appointed in the 2nd respondent office as a Junior Assistant on 27.12.1990. On 07.08.2000, the

District Collector promoted the petitioner as an Assistant and posted in the Election Section, Annur in the vacant post and her pay was fixed at 4000- 100-6000 with effect from 18.08.2000 and on superannuation, she was permitted to retire on 31.07.2004. After the retirement, she received a pension of Rs.4,581/-. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that her 50% service rendered in the post of Panchayat Clerk from 01.09.1965 to 28.12.1990 has to be calculated for the purpose of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011. Whereas the 2nd respondent has rejected the request vide impugned order dated 12.06.2023 on the ground that the petitioner was in the part-time employee. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 & 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that according to G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011, whether it is part-time or full time, 50% of the past service has to be calculated for the purpose of computing pension.

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner’s designation as a part- time employee, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.39, 50% of the past service has to be computed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, subsequently, when G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.07.2013 denied the part-time employee to take 50% of the past service for computation of pension, in WA(MD).No.16711 of 2023, the said G.O was quashed to the extent of denying the computation of 50% service in respect of the part-time employee. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1111 of 2016 [The Government of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Official’s Association rep. by its State] dated 22.03.2018. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that, according to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 [hereinafter called “Old Pension Rules”], while dealing about the qualifying service, it has specifically excludes the computation of the part-time service. When the Rule satisfies that the part-time employee’s past service cannot be computed for the purpose of computation, the executive order, which was relied by the petitioner, has no force at all. The learned Standing counsel would submit that even according to the averments made in the petitioner’s affidavit, the petitioner was only a part-time employee. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 11(2) of the Old Pension Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for computation of 50% of the past service. Even the amended provision to Rule 11, as per G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 09.02.2010, has not introduced any changes in respect of the part-time employee. In support of his contention, the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. A.Chidambaram reported in 2026:MHC:2486. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

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

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the G.O which prohibits for counting part-time service vide G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 12.07.2013 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court to the extent of prohibiting to count 50% service of the part-time employee and thereby, the position as per G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011 was restored. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner is a part-time writer. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that notwithstanding the fact that she was appointed as a part-time writer, she had worked full time. But, in this regard, there are no reference in the affidavit and there are no material to substantiate the same.

8. Here, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that according to the Pension Rules, the part-time service cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the Rule 11(2) of Old Pension Rules:- “11.Commencement of qualifying services:-

(1) …………..

(2) Half of the service paid from contingencies shall be allowed to count towards qualifying service for pension along with regular service subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Service paid from contingencies shall be in a job involving whole time employment and not part-time for a portion of the day.

(ii) Service paid from contingencies shall be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, for example Chowkidar.

(iii) Service shall be for which the payment is made out on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which, though not analogous to the regular scale of pay, shall bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishments.

(iv) Service paid from contingencies shall be continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break.

(v) Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall be limited to the period after the 1st January 1961 for which authentic records of service may be available.

(vi) Pension or revised pension admissible as the case shall be paid from the 23rd June, 1988.”

9. As per Rule 11(2)(i), the computation to count part time service was prohibited. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment restoring the G.O.Ms.No.39, now the issue comes whether the statutory rule prevail or the executive order prevail?. In this regard, the learned Standing counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment in A.Chidambaram’s case [cited supra], wherein this Court, after referring the Old Pension Rules [which is extracted hereinabove] and New Pension Rules has observed in paragraphs 10, 20 & 26 as follows:- “10.The above Rules in an unambiguous terms reiterates that Half of the service rendered under the State Government in non- provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 in respect of Government -employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the condition that service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment.” ……….

20. Rules extracted under the “Rule Position” caption above would emphatically reiterate that 50% of the temporary services shall be allowed to count towards qualified services for pension along with regular services, only if the job involves whole time employment and not part time. Sub-rule (4) to Rule 11 reiterate that counting of 50% of services to be extended, only if the job involves whole time employment. Therefore, legislative intention is unambiguous that a temporary employee served in a whole time job alone is entitled for counting 50% of the temporary services along with regular services for pensionary benefits. …………..

26. Pension is the deferred portion of the wages for the services rendered by a government employee. Therefore, pension, though given the status of a right under the constitution still exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under relevant Rules i.e, Rules, 1978. Therefore, though it is a right, it still operates within the framework as designed by the Government. The framework of Rule 11 of the Pension Rules is more of a welfare provision, as it stipulates counting 50% of temporary service along with the actual period of regular service of a Government employee. When the Government has given an additional benefit over and above the counting of regular service, this cannot be used as a ladder to claim counting of the full period of service rendered by Government servants on a temporary basis. In respect of counting 50% of temporary service, the Rule in unambiguous terms reiterates that the benefit is to be extended to employees employed in a whole-time job and not in a part-time job.”

10. According to the above finding, when the statutory rule and executive order is on the same subject, then the statutory rule would prevail over the executive order. In the case in hand, the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.39, which is admittedly an executive order, which is contrary to Rule 11(2) of the Old Pension Rules, which factum was elaborately discussed and clarified in A.Chidambaram’s case [cited supra] and ultimately concluded that the part-time service cannot be counted for the purpose of computation of pension.

11. While looking into the impugned order, the Authorities have rejected the request by referring to G.O.Ms.No.77, which as rightly submitted by the petitioner, was subsequently quashed to the extent of denying the part- time employee. Therefore, apparently through the reasoning given by the respondent seems to be erroneous arrived at the correct conclusion. While looking at the instant facts, in the backdrop of A.Chidambaram’s case [cited supra], and the Old Pension Rules, this Court could not find any ground to interfere with the finding, even though there is a ground to modify the reason to reach such conclusion.

12. Accordingly, the rejection order issued by the 2nd respondent is confirmed in view of Rule 11(2) of the Old Pension Rules.

13. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. KMI To

1. The Principal Accountant General (Accounts And Entitlement) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18.

2. The Block Development Officer, Sarkarsamakulam Circle, Coimbatore-641 107.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.600 009. WP No. 31569 of 2023 10-09-2026