The court ruled that prior part-time service of Village Assistants cannot be counted for pension calculations under the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, affirming the principle that erroneous orders cannot create binding precedents.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioners were appointed as Thalayari / Village Assistant originally. They were working on consolidated pay. Vide G.O. (Ms)No.625 dated 06.07.1995, their services as Village Assistants came to be regularised with effect from 01.06.1995. The writ petitioners subsequently retired from service on their reaching the age of superannuation. They contended that while computing their pensionary benefits, 50% of service put in by them as Thalayari during the period prior to 01.06.1995 must be counted along with the regular service put in by them. They wanted revised pensionary proposals to be sent and sanctioned. The writ petitions were allowed by the orders impugned in these writ appeals. Questioning the same, these intra-court appeals have been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that orders passed by the learned Single Judges do not deserve to be interfered with. He pointed out that the learned Single Judges have merely followed the earlier orders passed by various Single Judge Benches and Hon'ble Division Benches. According to him, the fundamental principle of equity would be egregiously breached, if the writ petitioners were to be denied the benefit of counting 50% of service put in by them prior to 01.06.1995, when similarly placed Thalayaries have already been accorded the said benefit.

4. Invocation of the doctrine of equality is misplaced. The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in State Vs. S. Rajaram, 2021 (1) CWC 705 held as follows:-

“19. It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality. A wrong order passed in one case cannot be made the basis for compelling a Public Authority to pass similar order in any other case. Even if the State implements an erroneous order passed by the Court, it cannot be precluded from challenging a similar order passed in another case, simply because Appeal was not preferred in the earlier case (Paragraph No.17 in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, 2009 (13) SCC 635).

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for Audit Accountant General, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. E. Balachandran, (2021) 3 MLJ 92 had already settled the issue and had allowed batch of writ appeals filed by the Government raising the very same issues now raised in these writ appeals. The said decision was followed by a learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in S. Muthusamy Vs. The Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Manager Department, Chennai, 2024 (2) Writ L.R. 357. Paragraph Nos.10 to 22 of the said decision read as under:-

“10. For considering the prayer of the writ petitioner, the following Service Rules and Government Orders have to be taken into consideration

(a) Tamil Nadu Village Servants' Service Rules, 1980.

(b) Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules 1983.

(c) G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995.

(d) Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules, 1995.

(e) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

11. From the appointment order issued to the writ petitioner on 31.03.1984, it is clear that the petitioner has been appointed, invoking Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. A perusal of Rule 16 of the said Rules reveals that the provisions of Fundamental Rules and the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1978 are not applicable to the village servants. It has been further clarified that the post of Village Servants are non-pensionable.

12. A perusal of the Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 reveals that it is applicable to all Village Servants who were appointed under Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980.

13. Rule 3 of the Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 is extracted as follows:

3. Private trade or employment: The Villa