Can an order running counter to the Pension Rules be followed as precedent in later cases?

No. Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality, and 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. Orders of learned Single Judges and Division Bench judgments running counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) of the Rules, 1978 and contrary to the Full Bench judgments have denuded to lose their status as precedent, and the resulting inconsistency in judicial pronouncements cannot be perpetuated.

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — r.11(2), r.11(4) — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Part-time service — Qualifying service for pension — Status as precedent — Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — r.11 — Counting 50% of temporary service — whole-time job only — Held: The benefit of counting 50% of temporary service as qualifying service is confined by Rule 11 to an employee employed in a whole-time job, and is not available for a part-time job. (¶6) Constitution of India — Art.14 — Orders contrary to the Rules — loss of status as precedent — Held further: Article 14 cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality, and orders running counter to Rule 11(2) and 11(4) lose their status as precedent. Writ appeal allowed. (¶6, 7)

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

Read the full text of The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.Narayannan — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India