BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.A(MD)No.1213 of 2021

and

C.M.P(MD)No.5122 of 2021

1.The State represented by

The Secretary to Government,

Forest and Environment Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 9.

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

Panagal Building,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 15.

3.The Divisional Forest Officer,

District Forest Office,

Race Course Road,

Madurai District. ... Appellants /

Respondents 1 to 3

Vs.

1.K.Murugesan ... 1^st Respondent /

Writ Petitioner

2.The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai – 18. ... 2^nd Respondent /

4th Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 03.03.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.3752 of

2017.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R.2 No Appearance for R.1

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The State has filed this Writ Appeal against the order dated

03.03.2017 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P(MD)No.

3752 of 2017 filed by the first respondent herein.

2.The first respondent has not been served. In normal circumstances, we would not have taken up the Writ Appeal for final disposal unless service was completed. However, we notice from the records that the issue is no longer res integra and it is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705 (The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs R.Kaliyamoorthy). The writ petitioner joined the Forest Department as gardener on 20.12.1985 on ad hoc basis. He was regularised on 07.08.2009. The demand of the writ petitioner was that 50% of his ad hoc service should be counted for pension purposes. The learned single Judge was of the view that this request deserved acceptance. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of on 03.03.2017 in the following terms:

“2. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of the services rendered by him on daily wages prior to regularisation is not taken into account for the purpose of pension and other benefits as per Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2012 dated 13.02.2012 (Government of Tamil Nady rep. by its Secretary to Government Vs M.Gopal), which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.14838 – 14839 of 2012 on 10.05.2012. The Government implemented the same in G.O.Ms.No.183, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 18.07.2012. Further, in P.Chinniyan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2014) 6 MLJ 316, this Court has given a direction to count 50% of service rendered before regularisation.

3.Following the abovesaid orders, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to count 50% of service rendered by the petitioner on daily wages before regularization along with the service rendered by him after regularization for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits in the light of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and also the judgments referred to above and send the revised proposals for the terminal benefits for authorization before the 4th respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 4th respondent is directed to authorize the same within a period of two weeks, thereafter. No costs.”

Subsequently, there has been a march of law. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Full Bench and the following question was formulated for reference.

“Whether half of the past service rendered by Government servants whose appointments were regularised after 01.04.2003 can be counted for the purpose of grant of pension under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in the light of the amendments to the aforesaid rules vide G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.0