K.Vimala Vs The Registrar General

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of mandamus, directing the 4^th respondent to send necessary corrected pension proposal to the 5^th respondent for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner who got retired on superannuation on 30.6.2023 either under the Old pension scheme or under the contributory pension scheme and the 5^th respondent in turn on receipt of the same shall process and grant sanction of pensionary benefits with interest within a reasonable time

¶20

Page1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

2026:MHC:1955

¶23

WP No. 11382 of 2026

¶24

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
For Respondent(s):	Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sashi for R1,3,4 Dr.R.Gowri,
	Government Counsel for R2 Mr.S.Mahesh
	for Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R5

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶27

The writ on hand has been instituted seeking a direction to the 4^th

¶28

respondent to send necessary pension proposal to the 5^th respondent for grant of pensionary benefits.

¶29

Petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Typist on temporary basis and later she was ousted from service. She was re-employed in the year 03.07.2006 and finally her services were regularized with effect from 03.07.2006. Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was amended in view of implementation of New Pension Scheme i.e., Contributory Pension Scheme in the year 2003. Accordingly, Pension Rule was also amended. Rule 1(2) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 reads as under,

¶30

“(2) they shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st January 1979.

¶31

"Provided that these rules shall not apply to Government Servants appointed on or after the 1st April 2003, to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on

¶32

Page2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

2026:MHC:1955

¶35

WP No. 11382 of 2026

¶36

pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent."”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge this Court by stating that

¶38

petitioner is eligible for pension under the Old Pension Scheme of the year 1978 in view of the Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The scope of Rule 25 has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State of

¶39

Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. J. Thirumalainarayanan and Another¹

¶40

“4. Findings:

¶41

4. This Full Bench has considered the totality of the factual aspect as well as the legal issue raised in the context of Rule 25 of the Rules, 1978.

¶42

5. At the outset the language used in Rule 25 has to be examined. An extract of the Rule is produced below:

¶43

“1[25. Condonation of interruption in service. - (1) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the Service Book, an interruption between two spells of Civil Service rendered by a Government servant shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, (or) removal from service or for participation in strike.

¶44

1 2026 MHC 1527

¶45

__________ Page3 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

2026:MHC:1955

¶48

WP No. 11382 of 2026

¶49

(3) The period of interruption referred to sub-rule (1) shall not count as qualifying service.]'

¶50

6. The language used in Rule 25 is crystal clear whereby the first clause states that an interruption between two spells shall be condoned and the preinterruption service treated as qualifying service. In addition to this, clause (3) elucidates further that the period of such interruption shall not count as qualifying service. So the scope of section 25 can be derived clearly. That any interruption of service apart from those caused by resignation, (or) removal from service or for participation in strike shall be treated as condoned and pre interruption services can be treated as qualifying service. However the period of actual interruption itself cannot be counted as qualifying service.”

¶51

Therefore, petitioner is eligible to receive benefits under the New Pension Scheme i.e., Contributory Pension Scheme. However, the benefits under the Contributory Pension Scheme is yet to be paid to the petitioner. Any delay in settling the pensionary benefits would affect the livelihood of the retired employees. Having served in the department for several years, benefits due to the employees at no circumstances be delayed.

¶52