Madras High Court
WA/2854/2023 of THE STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs A.BENNY on 2 September 2026
WA No. 2854 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 2854 of 2023
AND
WA NO. 2803 OF 2023
WA No. 2854 of 2023:
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep by its secretary, Revenue Department St.George fort, chennai 600009
2. The District Collector
The Nilgiris-District
3. The Tahsildar
Gudalur-TK,The Nilgiris-DT
..Appellant(s)
Vs
A.Benny
S/o.Anthoney, 19/512,
T.B.Road, Gudalur, Bazaar-post, The Nilgiris-Dt The Nilgiris
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 2803 of 2023:
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, St.
George Fort, Chennai 9.
2. The District Collector
The Nilgiris District.
3. The Tahsildar
Gudalur Tk, The Nilgiris Dist.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 2854 of 2023
Vs
T.L.Narayanan
S/o.Lakshmanan, 3/909,
ManaliSri Madurai Village and Post,
Gudalur Tk, The Nilgiris Dist.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 2854 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.01.2022 made in WP.No.34219 of 2018 and allow the Writ Appeal.
WA No. 2803 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.01.2022 made in WP.No.34222 of 2018.
In both Writ Appeals
For Appellant(s):
Mr.A.R.Suresh,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent(s):
Mr. K. Lavan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The issues raised in the present writ appeals are no more res integra. The Full Bench of this Court has already answered the reference in the case of A.Elangovan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in W.P.No.17628 of 2018, dated 06.04.2026. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “33. In fine, on the reasons aforesaid, this Court answers the reference in the following terms : “The persons, who were employed as Village Assistants/Talayaris prior to 1.6.1995, the date on which the service of Village Assistants/Talayaris were regularised, would not be entitled to count 50%
WA No. 2854 of 2023
of their service rendered in the pre-regularised period, viz., prior to 1.6.1995, for the purpose pensionary benefits, as the said posts held by them were part-time posts and not posts borne out of service or cadre.”
34. Though this Court is only required to answer the reference and send the matter back to the learned single Judge for further hearing, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the parties have made their submissions not only on the merits of the case, but also on the basis of the facts in the present writ petition and have no objection to this Bench deciding the case, this Court would proceed to analyse the facts of the present case to find out whether the petitioner is entitled for seeking the said benefit by applying the ratio laid down above.
35. A perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly, the communication addressed by the petitioner to the respondents seeking to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner as Village Assistant prior to 1.6.1995, it clearly shows that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was a part-time Village Assistant, as is evident from the subject of the communication. When the fact that the petitioner was a part-time Village Assistant has been admitted by the petitioner himself and the petitioner has admitted that he was neither occupying the post of Village Assistant temporarily nor in an officiating capacity nor in a permanent capacity, which post is borne out of a cadre and, therefore, applying the answer to the reference, it
WA No. 2854 of 2023
can safely be concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to have 50% of his service, rendered prior to 1.6.1995, counted for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and necessarily this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.”
2. In view of the Full Bench judgment cited above, the impugned writ order dated 21.01.2022 made in WP.No.34219 of 2018 and WP.No.34222 of 2018 are set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD
WA No. 2854 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. GD WA No. 2854 of 2023 AND WA NO. 2803 OF 2023 02-09-2026