Madras High Court clarifies that, in line with the Full Bench decision in R.Kaliyamoorthy, service rendered in non-provincialised entities like FFDAs, when regularised prior to 01.04.2003, must be counted for pension. The judgment explicitly applies the principle of equality for similarly placed employees and overrules a previous single judge decision to the contrary. Serves as binding authority for service jurisprudence relating to pension qualification of regularised agency staff.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/2310/2022 of S.KUMAR Vs State of Tamil Nadu |
| CNR | HCMA011568442022 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH, HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: MS RAMESH, J. and R. SAKTHIVEL, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority (Madras High Court) |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law — Pension Qualification; Equality under Article 14 |
| Questions of Law | Whether service rendered in non-provincialised agencies, regularised before 01.04.2003, counts for pensionary benefits |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Division Bench clarified that where services in non-provincialised agencies like FFDA were regularised prior to 01.04.2003, such service must be counted for pension, in terms of the Full Bench’s ruling in R.Kaliyamoorthy. The court expressly rejected the application of Umadevi to cases where regularisation and absorption had already occurred by lawful relaxation of rules. Relying on Supreme Court and Full Bench judgments, the court emphasised that similarly placed employees must be treated alike, and denial of parity violates Article 14. The judgment set aside the single judge’s finding that such employment was “illegal”, and held that the government could not deny benefits extended to others in analogous circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, originally working in FFDA, sought counting of service in the agency as pensionable, as was done for others (e.g., P.Jebakumar Ranjan, S. Rani). FFDA workers were absorbed and regularised in government service prior to 01.04.2003. The appellant’s request was rejected; a single judge dismissed his writ, relying on Umadevi and with “illegality” findings. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, applying R.Kaliyamoorthy and the equality principle. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Madras High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Overrules | Order of Single Judge in WP.No.1869/2015 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Madras High Court Division Bench explicitly applies R.Kaliyamoorthy FB order as binding precedent: service in non-provincialised agencies, if regularised before 01.04.2003, counts for pension.
- Principle of equality under Article 14 means benefits given to one ineligible employee (without State challenge) must be given to all similarly situated, so long as regularisation is prior to cut-off.
- High Court’s single judge finding of “illegality” in such appointments has been expressly rejected—regularisation by government order after relaxation is legally valid.
- Distinguishes Umadevi: that case does not apply to counting of service post-regularisation, only to claims for regularisation itself.
- Lawyers can use this ruling to secure pension rights for similarly placed employees whose pre-2003 service was regularised, even if initially in agencies.
- Government orders unchallenged and implemented for others cannot then be cited to deny parity to similar claimants.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by noting the precedent set by the Madras High Court Full Bench in Govt. of TN v. R.Kaliyamoorthy, which held that half the service rendered in non-provincialised institutions, when regularised before 01.04.2003, shall count for pension.
- Applied Article 14: if some identically situated employees were granted the benefit (even administratively, and without State challenge), others cannot be denied the same.
- Distinguished Umadevi (2006): The Supreme Court’s embargo on regularisation as of right does not apply once regularisation/absorption has already occurred lawfully.
- Noted that the regularisation in this case was carried out under Government Orders by valid relaxation of rules—hence, not illegal.
- Rejected the respondent’s submission that a previous Government Order extending the FFDA benefit was ultra vires, emphasising that unchallenged benefits given to one cannot justify denial to others similarly placed (relying on Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2015).
- Held that the earlier view of the single judge, characterising appointments as “illegal” and refusing parity, is contrary to established Supreme Court and Full Bench authority.
- Directed that the appellant be given the benefit of counting his FFDA service for pension, as regularisation was before 01.04.2003.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Relied on the case of P.Jebakumar Ranjan and other orders where service under FFDA was counted as qualifying service for pension.
- Cited G.O.Ms.No.130 (28.06.2017) extending the benefit to another similarly placed person (S. Rani).
- Relied on Full Bench decision in R.Kaliyamoorthy (2019), which allows for counting such regularised service for pension if regularised prior to 01.04.2003.
- Contended that denying him parity would amount to discrimination.
Respondent
- Argued that the precedent in S. Rani’s case was not in consonance with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and should not be extended.
- Asserted no provision exists for counting service in statutory bodies like FFDA as qualifying for pension.
Factual Background
The appellant originally worked as a temporary employee in the Fish Farmers Development Agencies (FFDA), which was later provincialised, and his service regularised by government orders before 01.04.2003. He sought to have his agency service counted as qualifying for pension, as was allowed for similarly situated persons. His request was rejected by the department and subsequently by a single judge, leading to the present successful writ appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, was discussed concerning whether it permits counting agency (non-provincialised) service for pension.
- R.Kaliyamoorthy (FB) interpreted the rules to affirm that half of such service, when regularised before 01.04.2003, must be counted for pension; fully regularised service qualifies.
- G.O.(3D).No.4 and other government orders relating to relaxation and regularisation of service were examined, finding that regularisation by order after rule relaxation is legally valid.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Full Bench law (R.Kaliyamoorthy) is affirmed and applied.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – The order of the Single Judge below is expressly overruled and key findings (on illegality of agency appointments) rejected.