Does Service Rendered as Part-Time Village Assistant Before Regularisation Qualify for Pension Benefits Under Tamil Nadu Rules?

The Madras High Court reiterates that service rendered as a part-time Village Assistant prior to regularisation (before June 1, 1995) is not “qualifying service” for pensionary purposes. The judgment affirms previous Division Bench authority (E.Balachandran) and clarifies that the special rules governing Village Assistants override general pension rules and Government Orders. Binding on all subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu and persuasive for other High Courts addressing similar statutory frameworks.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The Madras High Court affirms that pre-regularisation (part-time) service as Village Assistant cannot be counted for pension, reaffirming the special Village Assistant rules override G.O.(Ms) No.408/2009 and general pension rules.
• Past conflicting High Court orders not considering these rules are not binding and cannot be cited as precedent; only considered precedents interpreting the correct statutory framework will apply.
• Both whole-time employment and continuity without break are mandatory under amended Rule 11(4) of the 1978 Rules, which Village Assistants working part-time or with breaks do not satisfy.
• Article 14 or equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate mistaken extensions of pension benefit if those orders did not correctly interpret the rules.
• Lawyers representing Village Assistants should be cautious in citing older or unconsidered High Court decisions as precedent.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court systematically examined the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 and the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Pension Rules, 1995. It found that, before June 1, 1995, the post of Village Assistant was by statute part-time and non-pensionable.
• The rules allow only regularised/full-time service (post-1995) to be counted as qualifying service; the 1995 Pension Rules are a “special law,” precluding the application of more general provisions from the 1978 Pension Rules or G.O.(Ms) No.408/2009 (generalia specialibus non derogant).
• The amended Rule 11(3) and (4) of the 1978 Pension Rules do not apply unless the employment was whole-time and continuous, both of which were not satisfied in the appellant’s case (service was part-time, and included a break not condoned).
• The Court rejected the applicability of prior High Court decisions favouring the appellant, on the grounds that they were rendered without consideration of the special statutory scheme, and so are not binding precedent.
• The Court followed and relied upon: State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Balachandran (2021), T. Veersamy (2019), and S. Muthiah (2025), as well as pronouncements on the scope of Article 14 and precedent (State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Rajaram).
• The claim that equity or Article 14 required the same benefit previously granted to others was rejected; errors cannot be perpetuated.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• The petitioner’s service before regularisation, including periods of temporary appointment before 1995, should be considered for pension computation.
• Relied on G.O.(Ms) 408/2009, amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and case law (S. Chinnakaruppan and R. Kaliyamoorthy).
• Claimed that service was effectively “full-time” and should be treated as such for pension purposes.
• Argued that earlier High Court orders supported the claim.

Respondents

• Argued that, under Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 and Conduct Rules, 1983, the Village Assistant post before 1995 was strictly part-time and thus non-pensionable.
• Stated that regularisation from 01.06.1995 only allowed pension counting from that date onward, applying the Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995.
• Asserted that G.O.(Ms) 408/2009 and the amended Rule 11 only benefit full-time, continuous service, which the petitioner did not have.
• Cited the Division Bench judgment in E. Balachandran and similar precedents.

Factual Background

The appellant, C. Gajendran, was first appointed as Village Assistant on a temporary, part-time basis in December 1990, then reappointed in April 1994. His service was regularised as full-time from June 1, 1995. He retired on superannuation in September 2013. Seeking inclusion of his pre-regularisation service for pension benefits, he filed representations that were denied. His writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the present writ appeal.

Statutory Analysis

• Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 (Rules 13, 14, 16) classified pre-1995 Village Assistants as part-time, non-pensionable, and allowed part-time private employment.
• Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 (Rule 4(a)) counted only regularised or full-time service as qualifying for pension.
• Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as amended (Rule 11(3) & (4)), generally allowed half of certain pre-regularisation service to count, but only if the employment was whole-time and without breaks—criteria not satisfied in this case.
• The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant was applied, prioritizing special rules for Village Assistants over general pensionary rules.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting opinions; both judges concurred in the judgment and reasoning.

Procedural Innovations

• The judgment clarified the application of binding precedent, emphasizing that decisions rendered without due consideration of the applicable statutory rules are not binding.
• Reiterated the approach that earlier mistaken or incomplete judicial orders do not create enforceable equity or binding precedent, precluding perpetual reliance on administrative errors.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and applies the established principle from E. Balachandran and related cases, confirming the binding nature of special pension rules for Village Assistants.