The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules are to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50% of the services rendered by the employees, and Article 14 is to be applied only if the claim is in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the letter Pen 26/5/R 2606014/pt 7358/13-14/136331 dated 19.12.2013, quash the same and to direct the respondents to count the petitioner's half of the past services rendered by him in the post of Village Karnam from 01.08.1973 to 14.11.1980 (i.e., 3 years 1 months and 22 days) and to revise the pension and pensionary benefits along with arrears.)

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for counting 50% of the services rendered by him as Village Karnam, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Village Karnam in the erstwhile Administrative Service on 01.08.1973 in Perumangalam Village. He continued till the abolition of the said post on 14.11.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was directly re-appointed as Village Administrative Officer and he retired from service on 30.04.2011. The petitioner is a pensioner and he is now receiving pension.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of his services rendered in the post of Village Karnam is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the services as per the amendment to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move this Writ Petition.

4. The regular service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Village Administrative Officer has already been taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and now the petitioner is receiving pension for the qualifying services rendered by him in the said post.

5. As far as the Village Karnam post is concerned, it was temporary and part-time in nature. Thus, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was working in a part-time post and therefore, he is not eligible for the benefit of grant of 50% of the services, as per the amendment to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

6. The issue in this regard has already been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of S.Chinnakulandai Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development Department & others, passed in W.P.No.9562 of 2014, dated 20.07.2022, wherein it was held as follows:-

"Analysis:-

20. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerk. This Court, even before the Judgement of the Division Bench dated 26.02.2021, considered the nature of services with reference to the Service Rules as far as part-time Panchayat Clerks are concerned in W.P. (MD) No.20246 of 2013, dated 22.07.2019.

21. Considering the Judgements referred in the aforementioned paragraphs, it is clear that the Judgements of the Division Benches passed during the years 2016 and 2018 were over-ruled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case R.Kaliyamoorthy (cited supra). Thus, the Judgement of the Hon'ble Full Bench is to be followed for the purpose of extending the benefit of Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules.

22. Even regarding the application of equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others Vs. Bachan Singh, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 793 held that "in other words, the Supreme Court applied Article 14 only after finding that the employee was actually entitled in law for the benefit that he was seeking. The Supreme Court did not apply Article 14 blindfold, merely because other similarly placed employees got a benefit. Therefore, the Court has a duty before invoking Article 14 to see whether the employee is entitled to the benefit he was seeking".

23. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all ot