IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.Nos.2780 & 2821 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.22337 & 22888 of 2025

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2. The Collector, Thiruvannamalai Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai. ... Appellants in both cases -Vs-

1. S.Navaneetham ... 1st Respondent in W.A.No.2780 of 2025 2. E.Pachiappan ... 1st Respondent in W.A.No.2821 of 2025

3. The Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Saidapet Animal Husbandary Campus, Nandanam, Chennai - 35.

4. The Commissioner, Thellar Panchayat Union, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... 2nd & 3rd Respondents in both cases COMMON PRAYER : Appeals filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order dated 26.07.2025 in W.P.Nos.10529 & 10530 of 2018.

For Appellants Mr.Ramanlal in both cases : Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Anandakumar Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh for R1 in both cases Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader for R2 Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate for R3

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

Though these two writ appeals arise out of two separate orders dated

26.07.2023, but since the issue is one and the same and the findings are also similar to that of each other, both these writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.A.No.2780 of 2025, the wife of the employee who is no more, is the first respondent.

3. In W.A.No.2821 of 2025, the retired employee is the first respondent.

4. In both the cases, the respective private respondents had filed separate writ petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.10529 & 10530 of 2018. The respective employees were appointed as B-II Siddha Doctors sometime in 1970s'. Thereafter, they had been regularised from 1984. After serving for long years, the employees retired from service on superannuation in 2000 & 2003 and the employee i.e., D.Subramaniam in the first writ appeal, died on 24.12.2009 and the employee, i.e., E.Pachiappan in the second writ appeal is still surviving and getting the pension. As far as the employee in respect of W.A.No.2780 of 2025 is concerned, since the employee died on 24.12.2009 while he was receiving the pension, subsequently the present first respondent, i.e., the spouse of the employee is getting the family pension.

5. It is in this context, the said two writ petitions were filed only to seek a writ of mandamus to extend the benefit of G.O.(Ms)No.408, Finance (Pension)

Department, dated 25.08.2009 to these employees.

6. The import of G.O.(Ms)No.408 dated 25.08.2009 is concerned, as per which since Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 has been amended, whereby half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January, 1961 in respect of the Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April, 2003 shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the conditions that have also been mentioned in the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

7. Herein the case in hand, before such regularisation, they had been working either under consolidated pay or daily wage basis and thereafter, since they have got regularised only from the date of regularisation, their service has been taken into account for the purpose of pensionable benefits.

8. However by virtue of G.O.(Ms)No.408 dated 25.08.2009, 50% of the earlier service rendered by the respective employees either on daily wage basis or consolidated pay which since should have been taken into account for the purpose of combined pensionable service, the same since has not been taken into account by the pension paying authorities as well as the employer, those writ petitions wer