BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department – Appellants
Versus
K. Marimuthu – Respondents
W.A.(MD).Nos.1200, 1201, 1511 & 1199 of 2025 and 70 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.7481, 7483, 7480 & 8747 of 2025 and 781 of 2026
Decided On : 03-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deprivation of pension for village assistants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal question regarding service classification. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. clarification of 'non-provincialised service' in pension context. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. government's method of pension calculation. (Para 8) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing the appeals. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
1. These appeals have been filed to set aside the orders dated 14.03.2024, passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.964, 965, 963 of 2024 & WP(MD)Nos.13537 & 20850 of 2023.
2. The respondents were earlier working in non-provincialised service as Thalaiyaris. Subsequently, the said post was abolished under the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act , 1981. Thereafter, they were appointed as Village Assistants as full-time employees vide G.O.Ms.No.625 with effect from 01.06.1995 and were later promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer. As per the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978, their service rendered as Village Assistants cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. Consequently, they were deprived of pension and hence they sought relief to calculate their entire service, including the period served as Village Assistants and Village Administrative Officers. The said claim was contested by the Government by placing reliance on the clarification issued vide Letter No. 39161/Ser.8(1)/2018-5, dated 20.11.2019, of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, contending that the Village Assistant service could not be taken into account once the employees were promoted as Village Administrative Officers. The relevant clarifications are extracted below:
| Sl. No. | Points raised | Clarification issued |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | If a Village Assistant is promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer prior to 01.04.2003, whether the pensionary benefits are admissible as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules on the analogy that Village Assistants are non pensionable (Prior to issue of GO 9) as per G.O.118. | Clarification in this regard has already been sent vide Government letter No.12764/Ser.8(1)/2018-2, dated 20.12.2018. |
| 2. | If a Village Assistant is promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer after 01.04.2003, then the modality as to how hos services are to be reckoned for pensionary benefits. | An employee who held a post with pensionable service under Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 and promoted subsequently in another post I.e., even after 01.04.2003 by recruitment by transfer (Promotion) I.e., from Village Assistant to Village Administrative Officer, 50% of service rendered by the employee in the post of Village Assistant and the entire service of Village Administrative Officer are to be reckoned for pensionary benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. |
3. The Government contended that Village Administrative Officers are governed by the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978, which expressly bar the counting of service as Village Assistant. However, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed that the entire service be reckoned vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present writ appeals.
4.Heard Thiru M. Ajmal Khan and Thiru Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate Generals on behalf of the State and Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners.
5.The narrow question that arise in these appeals is whether the service of the Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 is non-provincialised service and if not, whether the impugned order is in accordance with law?
6. This Court, after hearing Thiru M. Ajmal Khan and Thiru Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate Generals, noted the discrepancy in the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978, particularly with reference to the expression “non-provincialised service.” This Court expressed the view that once Village Assistants were appointed as per the Government Order from 01.06.1995, they were treated as full-time employees and their service could not be termed as “


Service of Village Assistants post 01.06.1995 is not non-provincialised; thus, full service counts for pension eligibility under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Service as Village Assistant counts towards pension benefits despite subsequent promotions under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
The court ruled that past service of Village Assistants can be counted for pension calculation, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits without relying on previous illegal orde....
Part-time employment cannot be considered for pension calculation under applicable service rules, regardless of past incorrect orders granting such benefits to others.
Regularized Village Assistants are entitled to count entire service as Village Assistant for pensionary benefits.
Services under G.O.(Perm) No.625 of 06.07.1995 are countable for pension benefits.
Services rendered as Village Assistant and Office Assistant must be counted for pensionary benefits if services were regularised as per G.O.(Perm) No.625.
Service as Village Assistant after regularisation shall be counted for pensionary benefits as per G.O.(Perm) No.625.
Services rendered as Village Assistant prior to regularisation are countable for pension benefits under prior precedents.
Services rendered as Village Assistant and Office Assistant prior to regularization are countable for pensionary benefits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.