LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Is the date of the appointment order, and not an earlier instruction, reckoned for pensionary benefits?

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

The date of the appointment order issued by the appointing authority, and not an earlier instruction, is reckoned for pensionary benefits.

Yes. The date of the appointment order issued by the appointing authority, and not an earlier instruction, is reckoned for pensionary benefits. Mere instructions issued to an appointing authority confer no right on a candidate to claim appointment; the issuance of the appointment order alone confers that right, and the date of appointment is taken into consideration for extending service benefits including pensionary benefits. (¶5, 10)

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 5The Registrar General issued instructions to the appointing authorities. Such instructions cannot be construed as appointment orders. Appointment orders are to be issued by the appointing authorities and in the present case, the order of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 10.04.2003. Therefore, the date of appointment into regular establishment is to be reckoned for calculating the qualifying services for pension and other benefits. In the present case, relying on the instructions given by the Registrar General that the temporary appointees are eligible for pensionary benefits, which was reproduced in the appointment order, these temporary employees appointed after the cut off date viz., 01.04.2003 claimed the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme i.e., Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Paragraph 10Question arises whether the instructions given by the Registrar General, High Court, to appoint these temporary employees in sanctioned posts, would be taken as date of appointment. There is no doubt that mere instructions issued to an appointing authority would not confer any right on the candidates / employees to claim appointment. The issuance of appointment order by the appointing authority alone will confer right to the candidates. In other words, the date of appointment is to be taken into consideration for extending the service benefits including the pensionary benefits.
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
Can temporary service be counted under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules only where the appointment preceded the cut-off date?Does wrong quoting of a benefit in an order of an authority confer a right that supersedes the service rules?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections