JUDGMENT :

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 05.10.2023 made in W.P.No.28732 of 2023.

2. The first respondent was the writ petitioner who was appointed as Part-time Panchayat Clerk with effect from 16.08.1983 at Kovilampakkam Panchayat Union. Thereafter, the post of Part-time Panchayat Clerk is re-designated as Panchayat Assistant with effect from 01.01.1991. In the meanwhile, on 31.12.1990, his service had been regularised and has been made as a Full-time employee in the year 1999 and he has been absorbed as Junior Assistant with effect from 25.09.1999. After rendering service for long years, he retired from service on superannuation on 31.01.2023.

3. After retirement, when he approached the employer for getting pension by calculating his whole service including 50% of service when he was Part-time employee between 16.08.1983 and 31.12.1990 was sought to be calculated as a combined service for the pensionary benefits, that was not considered.

4. Therefore, seeking a writ of mandamus, the first respondent / writ petitioner had approached the writ Court by filing the said writ petition.

5. The writ Court having considered the factual matrix and also having considered the import of the Government Orders, i.e., G.O.(Ms)No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2022 and G.O.(Ms)No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4) Department dated 12.07.2013 had allowed the said writ petition through the impugned order dated 05.10.2023.

6. Heard Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, who made an attempt to seek to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court by citing the reasons that since the first respondent employee was the Part-time employee initially, therefore the service rendered by him as a Part-time employee even for 50% service out of which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits, was the import of G.O.(Ms)No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PA4) Department dated 12.07.2013. Therefore, if the same is applied to the facts of the case, the relief that was sought for and granted by the writ Court cannot be accepted and therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks indulgence of this Court.

7. We have also heard Ms.T.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the first respondent / writ petitioner who has brought to our notice that, the issue raised herein is no more res integra as the same has been considered at least by two Division Benches of this Court where this issue has been threadbare discussed and finality has been reached.

8. In the first Division Bench judgment, in the matter of Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009 and others Vs. A.Duraisamy and others in W.A.No.3784 of 2024 dated 06.01.2025, where exactly with the similar facts, the same issue had been raised, what are all the points that has been argued now by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants already been argued on behalf of the appellant Department therein by the learned Additional Advocate General in the said case, having considered all those aspects, the Division Bench by order dated 06.01.2025 has passed the following order:

“6. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and we have given our anxious consideration to the point that has been projected before us.

7. The import of G.O.(Ms)No.39 has already been extracted herein above, where irrespective of the stage whether Stage-I or Stage-II of the Village employee would be entitled to get the benefit of 50% past service which was rendered in the Village Panchayat. It is also the import of G.O.(Ms)No.39 that, whether the first respondent / first petitioner was a Part-time employee or Full-time employee, it is immaterial that, such a