The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to follow the Pension Rules scrupulously for counting 50% of the services rendered by employees and the application of Article 14 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 Mandamus, directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Panchayat Clerk/ Panchayat Assistant from 1.11.1981 to 2.6.2005 along with the service rendered in the post of Junior Assistant and RWO – I from 3.6.2005 to 30.6.2014 and grant him pension and other retirement benefits.)

1. The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Panchayat Clerk/Panchayat Assistant from 01.11.1981 to 02.06.2005 along with the regular service rendered by him in the post of Junior Assistant and Rural Welfare Officer – I from 03.06.2005 to 30.06.2014.

2. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerk on 01.11.1981 and full time Panchayat Assistant on 28.11.1990 in Tirupporur Panchayat Union. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 03.06.2005 and promoted to the post of the Rural Welfare Officer in the cadre of Assistant on 15.05.2013. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service as Rural Welfare Officer-I on 30.06.2014, on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of the services rendered by him in the cadre of part-time Panchayat Clerk is to be taken into consideration, for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services, based on the amendment to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The petitioner submitted a representation in this regard to the respondents on 07.11.2014. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner is constrained to move this Writ Petition.

4. 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 other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delays and laches as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that