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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
Rajarathinam S – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Visvalingam
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader

Services under G.O.(Perm) No.625 of 06.07.1995 are countable for pension benefits.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to instruct the District Collector to send revised pension proposals counting the petitioner's services as Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 to 18.02.2020 as per Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Pension Rules. Facts indicate the petitioner was initially appointed as Thalayari from 20.03.1985 to 31.05.1995, absorbed as Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 per G.O., and promoted to Office Assistant from 19.02.2020, retiring on 31.05.2022. The court's primary findings rely on a Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No.1200 of 2025, confirming eligibility to count such services for pension benefits. Second Paragraph: The main issue is whether services rendered as Village Assistant and Office Assistant under G.O.(Perm) No.625, dated 06.07.1995, should be counted for pensionary benefits. Ratio Decidendi highlights that the Division Bench has clearly determined that Village Assistants and Office Assistants whose services were regularised under the said G.O. are entitled to count their entire service for pension purposes. Last Paragraph: The final result directs the third respondent to submit a revised pension proposal within six weeks from receipt of this order, incorporating the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2026, without imposing costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner service history and pension claim. (Para 3)
2. previous division bench ruling on pension. (Para 4)
3. respondents agree to review petition. (Para 5)
4. court directs revised pension proposal submission. (Para 6)

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Thalayari and served as such from 20.03.1985 to 31.05.1995. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the regular time scale of pay as Village Assistant with effect from 01.06.1995 in terms of G.O.(Perm) No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 and continued as such till 18.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Office Assistant through proceedings dated 19.02.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2022. However, the services rendered by the petitioner as Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 to 18.02.2020 and as Office Assistant from 19.02.2020 to 31.05.2020 were not taken into consideration while fixing his pension. Hence, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation requesting revision of his pension duly taking into consideration the services rendered by him as Village Assistant and Office Assistant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same issue of counting the services rendered as Village Assistant and Office Assistant for the purpose of pensionary benefits had fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1200 of 2025 etc. [The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department and others Vs. K. Marimuthu and others]. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 03.02.2026, held that the Village Assistants and Office Assistants whose services were regularised in terms of G.O.(Perm) No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 are entitled to count their entire service as Village Assistant and Office Assistant for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the claim made by the petitioner is covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and that an appropriate revised proposal would be submitted.

6. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to submit a revised pension proposal to the first respondent, duly taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner as Village Assistant and Office Assistant, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 21.03.2026, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

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