Does a rule counting half of an employee's temporary service towards pension extend to part-time service?

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — r.11 — r.11(2) — r.11(4) — Part-time service — Counting of 50% of temporary service — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Precedent — Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — r.11 — Benefit confined to whole-time service — Held: Rule 11 counts half of temporary service only for an employee in a whole-time job, not for part-time service; pension, though a right, operates within the scheme the Rules frame. (¶2) Constitution of India — Art.14 — A wrong order is not a precedent to be repeated — Held further: Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality, and orders running counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) and to the Full Bench lose their status as precedent. Appeal allowed. (¶2, ¶3)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

“26. Pension is the deferred portion of the wages for the services rendered by a government employee. Therefore, pension, though given the status of a right under the constitution still exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under relevant Rules i.e, Rules, 1978. Therefore, though it is a right, it Page No.3 of 8 still operates within the framework as designed by the Government. The framework of Rule 11 of the Pension Rules is more of a welfare provision, as it stipulates counting 50% of temporary service along with the actual period of regular service of a Government employee. When the Government has given an additional benefit over and above the counting of regular service, this cannot be used as a ladder to claim counting of the full period of service rendered by Government servants on a temporary basis. In respect of counting 50% of temporary service, the Rule in unambiguous terms reiterates that the benefit is to be extended to employees employed in a whole-time job and not in a part-time job. VI. DISCUSSIONS: 27. In the present batch of appeals, the grounds for relief are based on the Government Orders implementing Court orders, and certainly not on the foothold of the Rules/law in place. Consequently, such individual orders have been followed as precedent in similarly placed consequential cases, creating a spinning wheel of precedent to choose from, thereby causing inconsistency and diluting the actual Rules/law in force. 28. The question arises: when certain orders relied on are running counter to the Pension Rules in force, and have been passed merely by relying on Page No.4 of 8 earlier orders as well as Government Orders implementing those court orders, can such orders be followed in perpetuity? 29. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgment in the case of P.L.S. Palaniappan cited supra. It is considered that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality. A wrong order passed in one case cannot be made the basis for compelling a public authority to pass a similar order in any other case. Even if the State implements an erroneous order passed by the Court, it cannot be precluded from challenging a similar order passed in another case, simply because an appeal was not preferred in the earlier case. VII. CONCLUSION: 30. Relying on the legal principle considered as above, this Court could arrive at the irresistible conclusion that those Government Orders and the judgments of the Single Judges and the Division Bench, running counter to the ratio laid down by the Full Bench judgments cited supra, cannot be a ground to claim the relief of counting of 50% of service in respect of parttime service rendered. The said benefit is to be granted strictly in accordance with the Pension Rules. 31. Therefore, all the orders of the learned Single Judges and Division Bench judgments, running counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the Rules, 1978 and contrary Page No.5 of 8 to the judgments of the Full Bench of this Court, have denuded to lose its status as precedent and cannot be followed for granting the relief of counting of 50% of service rendered by Part-Time Panchayat Clerks, or employees served in part-time employment. 32. In the view of the above position, the impugned orders dated 30.01.2023 made in W.P. No. 2103 of 2023, dated 28.06.2023 made in W.P. No. 19458 of 2022 and W.P. No. 30197 of 2022, dated 10.07.2023 made in W.P. No. 4033 of 2016, dated 31.07.2023 made in W.P. No. 894 of 2023, W.P. No. 891 of 2023 and W.P. No. 889 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023 made in W.P. No. 17562 of 2018 and W.P. No. 17563 of 2018, dated 17.10.2023 made in W.P. No. 5593 of 2020, dated 18.01.2024 made in W.P. No. 6499 of 2023, W.P. No. 6483 of 2023, W.P. No. 6509 of 2023, W.P. No. 6470 of 2023, W.P. No. 6510 of 2023, W.P. No. 6502 of 2023 and W.P. No. 6503 of 2023, dated 26.07.2024 made in W.P. No. 21025 of 2024 and W.P. No. 21029 of 2024 are set aside. Accordingly, the Writ appeals are allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. No costs. 33. In view of the order passed in the batch of aforementioned writ appeals, the W.P.No.39408 of 2015 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.” Page No.6 of 8