Employees Selected Before The Cut-off Date Get Old Pension Scheme, Even If Their Actual Appointment Was Delayed: Madras High Court

Background Facts

The respondent (employee) applied for the post of drawing teacher based on her employment seniority registered with the Employment Exchange. She received a call letter on 08.10.1999 and her name was included in the selection list published on 29.10.1999. The Committee was constituted for the selection process. It decided to proceed and sent call letters for certificate verification on 16.06.2000, wherein the employee participated and was informed of her selection. However, no appointment order was issued to her.

Aggrieved by this, she filed a writ petition. It was directed by the court to the authorities to consider her representation. She filed a Contempt Petition when the order was not complied with. The Court recorded the statement of the Government Pleader that the Education Department had permitted filling up of nine vacancies where her name was also included. Therefore, the contempt petition was closed.

The Corporation filed a Review Application contending that only six out of nine could be appointed. However, it was rejected by the Court with a direction to issue appointment orders to all nine without delay. Out of nine petitioners, only four were given appointment on 12.12.2002, while the employee was served with the appointment order belatedly on 31.10.2003. Therefore, she joined duty on 03.11.2003. She was placed under the old pension scheme, and GPF deductions were made for over 20 years. However, based on an audit objection, an order was passed directing her to register under the new pension scheme.

The employee challenged the order before the Single Judge, who allowed her writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the corporation filed the writ appeal.

It was argued by the appellants that the employee was appointed after the cut-off date as per G.O.(Ms)No.259, Finance (Pension). The Government Order provided that all Government and Local Body employees appointed on or after 01.04.2003 fall under the new pension scheme (CPS) and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 cease to apply to such appointees.

It was further submitted that while implementing salary distribution, the employee was continued under the GPF pension method, which was later discovered as an administrative error during audit inspection. Based on the audit objection, corrective steps were directed to be taken. The appellants further contended that other similarly placed persons appointed after 01.04.2003 in Madurai Corporation Schools have been duly brought under CPS.

On the other hand, it was argued by the employee that she had been placed under the old pension scheme for more than 20 years and was treated on par with similarly placed persons. It was submitted that similarly placed persons were issued appointment orders on 12.12.2002, but she was belatedly appointed.

The judgment in P. Ranjitharaj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others was relied upon to contend that merely because the employee was appointed at a later point of time would not deprive her from claiming benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to other employees appointed on or before 01.04.2003.

Findings and Observations of the Court:

It was observed by the Division Bench that the employee was appointed after the cut-off date, however, her appointment was one among nine candidates. Therefore, she could not be discriminated against the other candidates who were appointed on 12.12.2002. Since they were batchmates who participated in the same selection process, there was absolutely no reason to discriminate the employee and bring her under the new pension scheme.

It was further noted that the delay in making her appointment was exclusively attributable to the authorities and not to the employee. It was held by the Division Bench that merely because she was appointed belatedly on account of the inaction of the authorities, the right conferred upon her could not be taken away, especially after a period of two decades.

It was held that the issuance of show cause notice to bring her under CPS was unsustainable
in law. It was further held that the employee could not be deprived of the benefit of the old pension scheme, which she had been enjoying for over 20 years.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors.

Case No. : WA.(MD)No.771 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellants : S. Vinayak

Counsel for the Respondents : M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Ajmal Associates, B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel, for M. P. Senthil, P. Gunasekaran