Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
2026:MHC:2135
W.P.No.4321 of 2025
N.Balasubramanian
S/o.K.R.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Registrar General
High Court, Madras.
2. The Principal District Judge
Ariyalur.
3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Home Department (Courts)
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009. … Respondents
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
DATED : 10.06.2026
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed vide proceedings in A. No 124/2020 dated 21.12.2020 on the file of the Second respondent and quash the same by directing the respondents herein to take into account the past services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 23.06.1988 for computing pension period in the then existed pension scheme prior to regularization as a full time servant on 01.07.2009 for determining the pension amount payable to the petitioner after adjusting CPS contribution settled at the time of superannuation on 30.04.2020 and to pay the differential arrears amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum amount forthwith to the petitioner along with all other attendants consequential service terminal benefits besides directing the Respondents to pay the revised pension to the petitioner periodically.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran for R1 and R2
Dr.R.Gowri Government Counsel, for R3
*****
Part-time services do not qualify for pension calculation, as qualifying service requires full-time engagement. Furthermore, employees appointed to permanent posts following the implementation of a contributory retirement scheme are ineligible for benefits under the superseded non-contributory pension rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Service Regulations - Pension Rules - Qualifying service for retirement benefits must entail full-time employment; service rendered in a part-time capacity is explicitly excluded from being counted as qualifying service under the governing regulations. (Paras 6-8).
(B) Retrospective Applicability - Retirement Schemes - Legislative or administrative frameworks governing a specific pension regime are inapplicable to employees appointed on or after the mandatory cutoff date established by the introduction of a contributory retirement system. (Paras 11-13).
Facts of the case:
An individual sought the inclusion of prior years served in a part-time capacity toward their retirement benefits after being regularized into a full-time position. The petitioner contended that this period should be considered for pension calculation under the older pension framework, despite having been appointed to a regular post after the transition to a contributory retirement scheme.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the rules governing service benefits categorically require employment to be on a full-time basis to be considered as qualifying service. Because the petitioner’s appointment to a sanctioned, full-time post occurred after the effective date of the contributory retirement system, the petitioner is legally precluded from claiming benefits under the previous pension regime.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of part-time labor as qualifying service for retirement benefits and the applicability of an older, non-contributory pension framework to individuals appointed after the inception of a contributory retirement system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that part-time service fails to meet the threshold for qualifying service under the defined rules, and the statutory cutoff date associated with the adoption of the contributory scheme denies any retrospective entitlement to the previous pension framework.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]
The writ petition has been instituted claiming counting of the part time service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Masalchi as qualifying service for the grant of pension and pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 [hereinafter “Rules 1978” for the sake of brevity].
2. The uncontroverted facts between the parties are that the writ petitioner Balasubramanian, was appointed as a part-time Masalchi on 16.04.1981 as per proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. He served as a part-time Masalchi till 30.06.2009. Based on the proposal of the High Court, the Government issued an order sanctioning a regular post of Full-time Masalchi in pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.68 Home (Cts.V) Department, dated 28.01.2009. Consequently, the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, appointed the writ petitioner as a Full-time Masalchi vide proceedings dated 30.06.2009 and posted him at the Sub-Court, Ariyalur. The petitioner joined duty as a Full time Masalchi on 01.07.2009. Since the petitioner was regularly appointed as a Full-time Masalchi with effect from 01.07.2009, he was brought under the New Contributory Pension Scheme and a CPS account was opened.
3. The writ petitioner has made a claim stating that his service as a Part-time Masalchi from 16.04.1981 to 30.06.2009 is to be reckoned as qualifying service under Rule 11 of the Rules 1978, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.
4. The only issue to be considered is whether the service of the petitioner in the post of Part-time Masalchi is to be counted for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service under the Rules 1978 or not.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the sanctioned post of Full-time Masalchi and joined duty on 01.07.2009. Since the New Pension Scheme came into force with effect from 01.04.2003, the petitioner was brought under the new scheme i.e., Contributory Pension Scheme.
6. Rule 11 (2)(i) of the Rules 1978, stipulates that “service paid from contingencies shall be in a job involving whole time employment and not part time for a portion of the day”.
7. As a subsequent amendment was made to Rule 11 , after Sub-Rule(3) and as per amended Sub-Rule (4) to Rule 11 , “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 Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the condition that service rendered in non-provincilased service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment”.
8. Therefore, Rule 11 (2)(i) and Rule 11 (4) in unequivocal terms, reiterate that the benefit of counting 50% of service can be granted only when the employee was engaged in whole time employment and not part time employment.
9. In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioner was engaged in part time employment till 30.06.2009 and he was appointed as a Full-time Masalchi and joined duty on 01.07.2009.
10. The next question arises is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking the benefit under Rules 1978 (Old Pension Scheme) is entertainable.
11. In view of the implementation of the New Pension Scheme i.e., Contributory Pension Scheme, the Rules 1978 was amended. Proviso to Rule 1(2) of Rules 1978 states that “these rules ( Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 ) shall not apply to Government Servants appointed on or after the 1st April 2003, to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent.”
12. Therefore, the Rules 1978 will not apply to employees who were appointed against sanctioned posts in the Government on or after 01.04.2003. In
