WA/3415/2023 of THE STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs K.KRISHNAN (DIED) on 3 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Krishnaswamy Govindarajan J.) The Government, having been unsuccessful in defending the writ petitioner, is before this Court by way of appeal.

2. The 1st respondent herein (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives) is the petitioner in W.P.No.8245 of 2011, which was filed to quash the proceedings dated 15.02.2011 in Na.Ka.No.8710/W.3/E2/2010 passed by the 2nd respondent therein and consequently, to regularize his service as a P.G. Assistant (Economics) with all consequential benefits.

3. For better appreciation, the 1st respondent herein will be referred to as the writ petitioner and the appellants herein will be referred to as the respondents.

4. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking regularisation of his service as a P.G. Assistant (Economics) with all consequential benefits on the ground that he was originally appointed on a temporary basis as a P.G. Assistant (Economics) in the 4th respondent School on 18.08.1997 through the Parents Teachers Association. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a P.G. Assistant on regular basis in the year 2015 through the Teachers Recruitment Board and continued in the regular service. It was the further case of the writ petitioner that half of the service period rendered by him through the Parents Teachers Association as a P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent School has to be counted for pensionary benefits, in light of Rule 11 read with Rules 23 and 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

5. The respondents/appellants in the Writ Appeal contended that the writ petitioner’s initial appointment was temporary in nature and there were interruptions during such employment. Hence, such a period cannot be taken into account for providing pensionary benefits. Further, Rule 11(1) of the of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is very specific that the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence only from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively, or in an officiating or temporary capacity.

6. On the basis of the above submissions, the Writ Court by relying on Rule 11 and 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules came to the conclusion as follows: “7. Since the petitioner has now been employed under regular wages, no interference is required to the impugned order. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to pass appropriate orders, by calculating half of the petitioner's period of employment under the fourth respondent school from 18.08.1997 till his last date of working, after deducting the period of interruptions, if any, as "service period" for the purpose of pensionary benefits, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

7. We heard the Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents.

8. The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein submitted that the Single Judge failed to consider that the writ petitioner did not receive any salary from the Government during his temporary tenure through the Parent Teacher Association as a P.G.Assistant and that his regular appointment through the Teachers Recruitment Board was made only in the year 2015 pending writ petition.

9. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner’s original appointment was made only through the Parent Teacher Association and he subsequently secured a regular appointment through the Teachers Recruitment Board. While working as a P.G. Assistant through the Parent Teacher Association, the writ petitioner received appointment orders for every year and was paid a salary only from June to April (i.e. Academic Year). Before his appointment through the Parent Teacher Association on 18.08.1997, he had registered his name with the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, T.Nagar, Madras on

16.04.1991 and continuously renewed his registration and his employment card was active till April 2012.

10. The Writ Court by relying on Rules 11 and 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner and directed the authorities to re-fix the pensionary benefits by calculating half of the petitioner’s period of employment under the 4th respondent school from 18.08.1997 till his last date of working, after deducting the period of interruptions, if any.

11. The Rules 11 (1) speaks about the commencement of qualifying service and Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, speaks about the effect on interruption in service. For better understanding, the same are extracted as follows:

11. Commencement of qualifying service - [(1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the case of a government servant retiring on or after the 1st of October, 1969, [.......] temporary or officiating service in a pensionable post whether rendered in a regular capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying service even it is not followed by confirmation.

(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 authenticated records of service may be available.

(vi) Pension or revised pension admissible as the case shall be paid from the 23rd of June 1988.] [Half of the service rendered by State Government employee under non-pensionable establishment shall be allowed to be counted for pensionary benefits along with regular service under pensionable establishment subject to the following conditions.

(a) Service under non-pensionable establishment should have been in a job involving whole time employment.

(b) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been on time scale of pay.

(c) The service under non-pensionable establishment should have been continuous and followed by absorption in pensionable establishment without a break.

(3) These orders shall take effect from the date of this Government Order. In respect of those who retired prior to the date of this order, eligible pension, or revised pension, as the case may be, shall be paid from the date of this order, and that there can be no claim for arrears in any case for the period up to the date of this order.] Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978:

24. Effect on interruption in service. (1) The interruptions in service shall not entail forfeiture of past service except when a person was removed and re- employed. The actual interruptions in service shall not, however, count for pension.

(2) The services rendered in temporary or permanent department or in substantive office shall also count for pension even if any interruptions exist.

12. If the petitioner wants to take advantage of Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, he should first satisfy that his initial appointment was made either substantively, or in an officiating or temporary capacity and these three conditions necessitate an appointment made by a competent Government agency to a sanctioned government post.

13. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was not appointed through a Government agency, rather he was engaged by a local Parent Teacher Association on 18.08.1997. The very conduct of the petitioner in regularly renewing his registration with the Employment Exchange even after his engagement by the Parent Teacher Association, makes it clear that his appointment through the Parent Teacher Association is neither in a temporary, officiating, nor substantive capacity. That is the reason why he maintained his active registration with the Employment Exchange and subsequently, he got appointment in the year 2015 through the Teachers Recruitment Board.

14. The application of Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, by the Writ Court is factually incorrect under the circumstances of the present case and Rule 24 will apply once the requirements of Rule 11(1) are fully satisfied. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 11(1) itself. So the applicability of Rule 24 will not help the petitioner in any aspect.

15. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are interfering with the order of the Writ Court.

16. Accordingly, the order dated 02.03.2022 made in W.P.No. 8245 of 2011, is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Pre delivery Order made in WA No. 3415 of 2023 10-09-2026