SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 318

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. M.Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.R.A. Ramanachandran Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Visvalingam, Mr. R. Gunasekaran

Service of Village Assistants post 01.06.1995 is not non-provincialised; thus, full service counts for pension eligibility under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Implications of service classification for pensionary benefits - Acknowledgment that service of Village Assistants post 01.06.1995 cannot be classified as "non-provincialised service" for pension calculation. (Paras 5-9)

(B) Promotions and Pension - Employees promoted to Village Administrative Officer after serving as Village Assistants entitled to have their full service counted towards pensionary benefits. (Paras 6-10)

Facts of the case:
Employees served as Village Assistants then were promoted, seeking pension calculation including previous service, contested by Government citing pension rules. (Para 3)

Findings of Court:
Court held full service rendered as Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer must be considered for pension calculations. (Para 9)

Issues: Whether service of Village Assistants is non-provincialised and in line with pension law? (Para 5)

Ratio Decidendi: Court determined that service as Village Assistants is not non-provincialised and thus should count fully for pensionary benefits. (Para 9)

Result: All writ appeals dismissed; respondents directed to disburse pensionary benefits within six weeks.

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 raisedClarification 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 “

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top