Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan held that the service rendered as a full-time Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 cannot be treated as non-provincialised service. It must be fully counted along with Village Administrative Officer service for pensionary benefits. Background Facts The respondents worked as part-time Thalaiyaris (village servants). Their posts were abolished under the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act, 1981. Subsequently, they were appointed as full-time Village Assistants from 01.06.1995. Later, they were promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer. The Government denied them full pension on retirement. The Government took a stand that under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, their service rendered as Village Assistants could not be counted for pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The Single Judge allowed their petitions. It was directed to the Government to consider the entire service, including service as Village Assistants, for pension. Aggrieved by this order, the State Government filed the writ appeals before the Division Bench. It was argued by the State Government that the Village Administrative Officers are governed by the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which bar the counting of service rendered as Village Assistant. Reliance was placed on the clarification dated 20.11.2019, which stated that the Village Assistant service could not be taken into account once the employees were promoted as Village Administrative Officers. Further, if a Village Assistant was promoted to the post of Village Administrative Officer prior to 01.04.2003, pensionary benefits were not admissible. If he was promoted after 01.04.2003, then only 50% of the Village Assistant service could be counted along with the entire Village Administrative Officer service. The Government further argued that the service of Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 is non-provincialised service. Therefore it cannot be taken into account once the employees were promoted as Village Administrative Officers. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that they were initially appointed as full-time Village Assistants and were later promoted to Village Administrative Officer. They contended that their service rendered as Village Assistants cannot be termed as “non-provincialised service” to deny them pensionary benefits. Findings of the Court It was noted by the court that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not contain any definition for the expression “non-provincialised service”. It was observed by the Court that after the Village Assistants were appointed as per Government Order, they were treated as full-time employees. Therefore their service could not be termed as non-provincialised service. It was held by the Court that the service rendered as Village Assistant does not constitute “non-provincialised service.” Therefore the respondents are entitled to have their entire service counted for pensionary benefits. It was held by the Division Bench that where a Village Assistant is promoted as Village Administrative Officer, the full service rendered as Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 along with the service as Village Administrative Officer shall be taken into account for computing pensionary benefits. It was further held by the Division Bench that the service of Village Assistant is not “non-provincialised service” therefore, the order of the Single Judge was in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeals filed by the State Government were dismissed by the Division Bench. The Government was directed to disburse the pensionary benefits within six weeks. Case Name : The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68 Case No. : W.A.(MD).Nos.1200, 1201, 1511 & 1199 of 2025 and 70 of 2026 Counsel for the Appellants : M. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General assisted by S. R. A. Ramanachandran Additional Government Pleader, Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Counsel for the Respondents : S. Visvalingam and R. GunasekaranClick Here To Read/Download Order

Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers