The Secretary to Government, Vs Karuppasamy

For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.Y.Jagadeesh for Mr.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel for R2

¶24

JUDGEMENT

¶25

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

¶26

The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2023, by and in which, the learned Single Judge has directed the official respondents to disburse pension to the petitioner therein.

¶27

The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the appellants before this

¶28

Court, the writ petitioner is arrayed as first respondent and the fourth

¶29

2/7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2024

¶32

respondent in the writ petition is arrayed as second respondent in the present writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred according to their litigative status before the writ Court.

¶33

The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants / respondents 1 to 3 and 5 would vehemently contend that even according to the petitioner, he was appointed during the year 1987, and that his post was regularised with effect from 01.08.2004. But without challenging his regularisation, he retired on 31.07.2022. He would further submit that by virtue of G.O.(Ms)No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, there was an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and according to the amendment, those who were recruited on and after 01.04.2003 are not eligible for pension. The learned Single Judge without going into the material aspects has directed the respondents to disburse pension, which is contrary to law. In support of this contention, he relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705.

¶34

3/7

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2024

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / first

¶38

respondent would contend that since the petitioner joined in service in 1987, he is eligible for pension as the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No. 259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, is in respect of persons recruited on and after 01.04.2003. It is his submission that the learned single Judge has taken into consideration of all the aspects, more specifically, the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent. Hence, would contend that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

¶39

We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶40

The short point to be considered in the writ appeal is that whether the petitioner is eligible for pension. It is an admitted fact that by virtue of G.O.(Ms)No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, the employees, those who were recruited under pensionable establishment on or after 01.04.2003 are not eligible for pension and they would be subscribed to contributory pension scheme.

¶41

4/7

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2024

¶44

In the case in hand, while looking at the averments of the petitioner's affidavit, he has categorically mentioned that his service was regularised on 01.08.2004. Therefore, it is amply clear that though he joined in service during the year 1987, until 2004, his service was not regularised. The petitioner thereafter, served in the Department until 2022 and during his tenure, he never challenged the date of regularisation. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner borne into the cadre only on 01.08.2004, in which date, G.O.(Ms)No.259, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003 came into effect, and that by and in which, the eligibility of pension was discontinued for those recruited on or after 01.04.2003. It is also relevant to refer the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy, cited supra, where this Court has held that the Government employees / servants those who were regularised before 01.04.2003 alone are eligible to count their past services for the purpose of conferment of pensionable benefits.

¶45

As already stated, the petitioner was regularised well after the above cut off date stipulated in R.Kaliyamoorthy's case supra. Therefore, we find force in the submissions made by the learned Additional

¶46

5/7

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2024

¶49

Government Pleader. Hence, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

¶50

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and as a sequitur, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.04.2023 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

[A.S.M.,J.] & [C.K., J.] 11.11.2025

¶52

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes

¶53

mbi

¶54

6/7

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A.(MD)No.219 of 2024