Part-time employment cannot be considered for pension calculation under applicable service rules, regardless of past incorrect orders granting such benefits to others.

JUDGMENT

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The present writ appeal is filed by the State against the order, dated 20.03.2019, passed in W.P.(MD)No.15270 of 2017.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 09.06.2017 and consequently to direct the respondents to refix the pension by considering the petitioner's entire period of service from 10.06.1987 to 30.06.2012 based on various judgments and further, to direct the respondents to sanction full pensionary benefits.

3. The writ petitioner joined the duty on 10.06.1987 at Ponnari Village and worked as Grama Paniyalar. Thereafter, he worked at Kodimangalam Village, Kulapandi Firka till the date of retirement and retired on 30.06.2012 on attaining superannuation, thereby, he has put in service of 25 years and 20 days. The petitioner's service was regularized with effect from 01.06.1995 based on G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. The 3^rd respondent Tahsildar sent pension proposal, which was sanctioned for the period from 01.06.1995 to 30.06.2012.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the appellants have taken the petitioner's appointment as part time by referring to G.O.Ms.No.625, but the said G.O., is not applicable to the petitioner, which is held by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.16 of 2009 and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the S.L.P.No.21683 of 2009. Based on the same, the appellants had disbursed the entire pension to employee Mr.Raman Nair, who filed W.P.(MD)No.1716 of 2005 and W.A.(MD)No.16 of 2009 through G.O.Ms.No.33, Revenue Department, dated 25.01.2012, thereby the order passed by the Court is complied with. Since the petitioner is also similarly placed, petitioner had filed the writ petition by relying on the said order.

5. The appellants had submitted that the petitioner's initial appointment from 1987 is a part time service. Thereafter, the said post was abolished and a full-time post was created. In the full time post the petitioner was post in the year 1995, hence the petitioner is not entitled to calculate the part time service for the pensionary benefits.

6. After hearing the rival submissions, the Writ Court by following the judgment passed in W.P.(MD)No.12776 of 2012 in the case of C.Chellam Vs. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), dated 25.03.2014, allowed the writ petition by quashing the order which had declined to grant full pension and consequently, directed to pay the entire pension by considering the entire service. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the State.

7. The contention of the appellants is that the said judgment rendered in C.Chellam is not applicable to the writ petitioner, since the writ petitioner was appointed as a part time “Talaiyari” with effect from 10.06.1987, vide orders of the Tahsildar, Madurai North in proceedings in Pro.Rc.No.6123/87-B1, dated 26.05.1987 and he has joined as Talaiyari from forenoon on 10.06.1987. Further, the post of Talaiyari was erstwhile Karnam and Headman. Though prestigious, it was considered as part time job and mostly devolved hereditarily by way of succession and it was not a pensionable service until the year 1995 when their services were regularised retrospectively as on 01.06.1995, vide G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. Even as per the service rules, it is only a part time job.

8. The said issue was subsequently considered by another Division Bench in the case of the State of Tamilnadu Vs. E.Balachandran filed in W.A. (MD)No.1629 of 2018 and batch wherein the appeal preferred by the State was allowed and it was held that as per the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 the