The Madras High Court has affirmed that services rendered in non-provincialised government bodies, if regularised prior to 01.04.2003, must be counted (at least half) towards pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. This ruling reinforces the Full Bench decision in R.Kaliyamoorthy (2019), mandates the extension of such benefit to all similarly situated employees, and upholds the principles of equality in service jurisprudence. The judgment serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/344/2024 of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs P. BALAKRISHNAN CNR HCMA011336322023 |
| Date of Registration | 30-01-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH, HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: M.S. RAMESH & R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Full Bench decision in R.Kaliyamoorthy (2019) and Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Pension Law; Constitutional Law (Article 14) |
| Questions of Law | Whether service in non-provincialised posts like FFDA, regularised before 01.04.2003, should be counted towards pensionary benefits |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, in view of the Full Bench decision in R.Kaliyamoorthy, half of the service rendered by government employees in non-provincialised bodies (such as FFDA), if regularised before 01.04.2003, must be counted for pensionary benefits. The ruling further states that refusal to extend such benefits to similarly situated employees amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14. The principle of extending benefits granted by a court to all identically situated employees is reiterated, per Supreme Court precedent in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015). The State’s objections were rejected, as it had itself implemented similar orders in other cases without challenge. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Respondents were employees in Fish Farmers Development Agencies (FFDA), a non-provincialised body, whose services were later provincialised and regularised before 01.04.2003. They sought pensionary benefits, relying on earlier regularisation of a similarly situated individual (P.Jebakumar Ranjan) and orders from the Madurai Bench. The Single Judge had directed the State to consider their cases in line with the prior decision. The State appealed, arguing such service could not be counted for pension, but similar benefits had previously been given and not challenged. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Service and Pension authorities; Central Administrative Tribunal |
| Overrules | None reported; affirms existing Full Bench and Supreme Court precedent |
| Distinguishes | None specified |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that employees who served in non-provincialised government bodies, and whose services were regularised prior to 01.04.2003, are entitled to have half of such service counted toward pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
- Mandates non-discriminatory extension of judicial benefits to all similarly situated employees, even if they did not approach the court earlier.
- Clearly rejects State’s refusal to extend relief to other employees when it has already implemented similar orders in comparable cases.
- Offers strong citation for invoking Article 14 in service benefit matters involving parity of treatment among government employees.
- Clarifies that objections based solely on technical conformity with pension rules cannot stand if similarly situated employees have already been awarded relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first set out the factual similarities between the respondents and previous recipients of relief—both sets had their non-provincialised services regularised before 01.04.2003.
- It relied on the Full Bench in R.Kaliyamoorthy, which explicitly held that for employees whose services in non-provincialised roles were regularised before 01.04.2003, half of such service must be counted for pension.
- The State’s argument that it was not bound by earlier orders (like those in W.P.(MD).No.20756 of 2016) was rejected because the State had implemented those orders and not appealed.
- The Court invoked Article 14, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Arvind Kumar Srivastava), which established that denial of such relief to similarly placed employees constitutes discrimination.
- It held that in service matters, benefits extended to one group cannot be denied to others in identical positions—even if those others did not initially approach the Court—unless there is a legal impediment.
- The Court concluded that the State’s appeal lacked merit and directed the authorities to forthwith pass orders counting the respondents’ FFDA service for their pension benefits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Appellants (State of Tamil Nadu):
- Argued that orders like W.P.(MD).No.20756 of 2016 were not in accordance with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
- Contended there is no legal provision to count services rendered under statutory bodies or non-provincialised bodies (like FFDA) towards qualifying pensionary service.
Respondent
Respondents (Employees):
- Cited grant of similar benefits to Junior Engineer P.Jebakumar Ranjan and others.
- Relied on Full Bench ruling in R.Kaliyamoorthy (2019), which allows half of pre-01.04.2003 regularised service in non-provincialised posts to be counted for pension.
- Emphasised the State’s implementation of the Madurai Bench order in W.P.(MD).No.20756 of 2016 with no denial or challenge.
- Asserted the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination among similarly situated employees.
Factual Background
The respondents were employed as temporary staff in the Fish Farmers Development Agencies (FFDA), a non-provincialised government body in Tamil Nadu. Their services were later provincialised and regularised by means of government orders, well before 01.04.2003. They sought pensionary benefits on the basis that a similarly situated employee (P.Jebakumar Ranjan) had his entire service period in FFDA counted after regularisation, and that the court had ordered similar relief in prior Madurai Bench judgments. The State filed writ appeals against a Single Judge order directing them to consider the respondents’ cases on parity with earlier decisions.
Statutory Analysis
- The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 were central to the legal question, specifically regarding qualification for pension and recognition of non-provincialised service.
- The Full Bench in R.Kaliyamoorthy interpreted the Pension Rules to permit counting half the service in non-provincialised roles regularised prior to 01.04.2003.
- The State’s objections with reference to Rule 11 of the Rules were rejected, as the higher judicial interpretation in R.Kaliyamoorthy prevailed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The original Single Judge order provided detailed directions on the administrative process, including timelines for consideration, alternate modalities for a hearing (physical or written), and methods for communication of the final order, with the intent to avoid contempt proceedings.
- No new procedural precedent set in the appellate judgment; the Division Bench simply affirmed dismissal of the State’s appeals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents are affirmed and followed.