LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Does wrong quoting of a benefit in an order of an authority confer a right that supersedes the service rules?

TMT.M.UMA MAHESWARI v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
WP.48311/2025 · 2026:MHC:3735 · W.P.NO.48311 OF 2025
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Rule 1(2) Tamil Nadu Pension Rul…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Wrong quoting of a benefit in an order of an authority confers no right and cannot supersede the service rules.

No. Wrong quoting of a benefit in an order of an authority confers no right and cannot supersede the service rules. An erroneous order or an erroneous decision taken in an individual case cannot supersede the provisions of law governing the Pension Scheme, which are unambiguous. (¶15)

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 1(2) proviso — Rule 11(4) — Old Pension Scheme — Cut-off date — Date of appointment — Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 1(2) proviso — Cut-off date — Date of the appointment order governs — Held: The date on which the appointing authority issues the order of appointment, and not an earlier instruction to appoint, is the date reckoned for pensionary benefits. (¶5, 10) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 11(4) — Counting temporary service — Appointment before the cut-off date — Held further: Temporary service can be counted only where the appointment was made before the cut-off date; the 1978 Rules do not apply to a later appointee. (¶12, 13) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Erroneous recital of a benefit — No right conferred — Held further: Wrong quoting of a benefit in an order of an authority confers no right and cannot supersede the Rules. Writ petition disposed of. (¶15, 17)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15Wrong quoting of certain benefits in an order passed by an authority would not confer any right, if such quoting is in violation of service rules applicable to the post. In the present case, as on the date of issuance of instructions by the Registrar General, the New Pension Scheme had not came into force. But on the date of appointment of the writ petitioner, the New Pension Scheme (Contributory Pension Scheme) came into force and necessary amendment was made to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Accordingly, persons appointed after 01.04.2003 are eligible to avail the benefits under the New Pension scheme i.e., Contributory Pension Scheme. This being the legal position, any erroneous order or erroneous decision taken in an individual case would not supersede the provisions of law in the context of Pension Scheme which are all unambiguous.
Acts & Sections
Rule 1(2) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978Rule 11(4) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978Rule 16(a)(i) Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service RulesRule 16(e)(i) Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules

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

Read the full text of TMT.M.UMA MAHESWARI v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is the date of the appointment order, and not an earlier instruction, reckoned for pensionary benefits?Can temporary service be counted under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules only where the appointment preceded the cut-off date?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections