Service as Village Assistant counts towards pension benefits despite subsequent promotions under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

ORDER :

Mr. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These appeals have been filed to set aside the orders dated14.03.2024, 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:

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 “non-provincialised service.” This Court found no definition for “non-provincialised service” in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and hence, this Court sought an explanation as to the meaning of “non-provincialised service” and whether Village Assistants would fall within the said category.

7. Upon instructions from the Government, Thi