Synopsis

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against a Single Judge order directing sanction of retirement benefits by counting the period of break in service as qualifying service for pension. A Division Bench noted a conflict: an earlier Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Maria Antony Ruswald had granted such benefit, but another Division Bench doubted its correctness in light of Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The matter was referred to a Full Bench.

The Full Bench held that Rule 25 read with Rule 24 explicitly provides that while interruption in service may be condoned and pre‑interruption service counted as qualifying service, the actual period of interruption itself cannot be counted as qualifying service. The decision in K. Maria Antony Ruswald was declared bad in law. The Court clarified that the in‑limine dismissal of a Special Leave Petition against that decision does not constitute a binding precedent under Article 141. The reference was answered accordingly.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy and Honourable Mr. Justice K. Surender (Full Bench)

Date of Judgment: 7th April 2026

Citation: WA Nos. 2683 and 2860 of 2025 (2026:MHC:1527)

Core Law: Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rules 24 and 25 (counting of qualifying service, condonation of interruption); Service law – counting of break in service for pensionary benefits

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 24 (effect on interruption in service); Rule 25 (condonation of interruption in service)

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 (binding nature of Supreme Court decisions); Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Key legal principles applied

Rule 25(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978: Sub‑rule (1) states that an interruption between two spells of civil service shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre‑interruption service treated as qualifying service. Sub‑rule (3) explicitly states that the period of interruption itself shall not count as qualifying service. The rule is unambiguous.

Rule 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978: Reinforces that actual interru

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.