/2022 INSC 0335/
1
NON­REPORTABLE
     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s.)  3176­3177       OF 2022
(Arising from the SLP(Civil) No(s).14438­39 OF 2019)
P. RANJITHARAJ                                …Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.            …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s.)    3178 ­3179      OF 2022
(Arising from the SLP(Civil) No(s). 7824­7825   OF 2022)
                                                     (D. NO.9915 OF 2019)
J U D G M E N T
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The   present   appeals   have   been   filed   assailing   the   judgment
dated   19 th
  June,   2014   and   later   order   dated   2 nd
  November,   2018

2
passed   in   review   application,   whereby   the   appellants   have   been
denied to become member of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.  
4. The   indisputed   facts   manifest   from   the   record   are   that   53
vacancies   of   Assistant   Public   Prosecutor   Grade   II   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “APP   Grade   II”)   came   to   be   advertised   by   the   Tamil
Nadu   Public   Service   Commission   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
Commission”)   by   advertisement   dated   9 th
  November,   2001.     After
undertaking  the  process for  selection,  the  final   select  list  was  sent
by the Commission to the State Government, pursuant to which 51
persons,   including   those   who   are   lower   in   order   of   merit   to   the
appellants   herein,   were   appointed   on   the   post   of   APP   Grade   II   by
the Government by order dated 24 th
 September, 2002.  
5. So far as the present appellants are concerned, their names at
the given point of time were withheld for want of further verification
and   clearance   from   the   Commission.   The   Commission   on
verification granted clearance to both the appellants and intimated
to the State Government by its communication dated 3 rd
 September,
2002   (much   before   the   appointments   made   by   order   dated   24 th
September,   2002).   Despite   all   the   formalities   being   completed,
without any reasonable cause or justification, the State Government

3
withheld   the   appointments   of   the   appellants   and   finally   both   the
appellants   were   appointed   on   the   post   of   APP   Grade   II   on   23rd
August, 2005 and 23rd April, 2004 respectively.   
6. In the meanwhile vide notification dated 6 th
  August, 2003, an
amendment was  made  under  the  Tamil  Nadu  Pension  Rules,  1978
which   came   into   force   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2003   and   following   proviso
was added to Rule 2 :
“Provided that these rules shall not apply to Government Servants
appointed   on   or   after   1 st
  April,   2003,   to   services   and   posts   in
connection   with   the   affairs   of   the   State   which   are   borne   on
pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent.”
7. Accordingly, the State Government introduced a new Contrib ­
utory   Pension   Scheme  applicable   to   the  Tamil  Nadu  State  Govern ­
ment employees who are recruited on or after 1 st
 April, 2003.  
8. The   grievance   of   the   appellants   is   that   advertisement   was
published by the Commission on 9 th
  November, 2001 for the block
year   1998­2002,   pursuant   to   which   after   selection   51   candidates
out of 53 (except the appellants) were appointed by order dated 24 th
September,   2002   and   before   these   appointments   could   be   made,
the  names of the  appellants  were also cleared by the    Commission
after due verification on 3 rd
 September, 2002, but the State Govern ­
ment failed to include their names while appointments of other se ­
lected candidates, including  those  who  are lower   in order  of merit,

4
were   made   on   24 th
  September,   2002   and   without   any   reasonable
cause/justification, their appointments were withheld for two/three
years   and   finally   they   were   appointed   on   23rd   August,   2005   and
23rd   April,   2004   respectively   and   the   delay   in   appointments   in   no
manner could be attributable to the appellants and because of their
later   appointments,   the   Government   has   denied   them   to   avail   the
benefit and become a member of the Scheme, 1978 which was ap ­
plicable to the employees who were appointed on or before 1 st
 April,
2003.    
9. The counsel for the appellants further submits that in terms of
their  placement in order  of merit in the select list despite later ap ­
pointments   in   the   year   2004   and   2005,   still   all   benefits,   including
seniority,   promotion,   etc.   were   extended   to   the   appellants.   In   the
given circumstances, merely because there is delay in appointment
would not deprive the appellants of their right to become a member
of the Pension Scheme, 1978 claiming  parity with the other  candi ­
dates who had participated in the common process of selection held
by the Commission pursuant to advertisement dated 9 th
 September,
2001 and the High Court has committed a manifest error to proceed
blindly on the premise that since they were appointed after 1 st
 April,
2003, are not entitled to become member of Pension Scheme, 1978,

5
which   was   applicable   to   the   employees   appointed   on   or   before   1 st
April, 2003 and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while
supporting   the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court   under   the   im ­
pugned   judgment,   submits   that   the   Scheme   of   Rules   1978   which
has been amended by the notification dated 6 th
 August, 2003, is not
under challenge and that clearly demonstrates that it will be appli ­
cable only  to  such  of the  employees who  were appointed  on  or  be ­
fore 1 st
  April, 2003, to draw the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules,   1978.       Admittedly,   the   present   appellants   were   appointed
much after  the new Contributory  Pension  Scheme was introduced,
which   was   applicable   to   the   employees   recruited   on   or   after   1 st
April, 2003, which alone will be applicable to the present appellants
and this what the High Court has observed in the impugned judg ­
ment and needs no further interference by this Court.   
11. After we have heard counsel for the parties and with their as ­
sistance perused the material available on record, in our considered
view,   the   premise   on   which   the   High   Court   has   proceeded   is   not
sustainable for the reason that the appellants along with other ap ­
plicants   had   participated   in   the   self­same   selection   process   pur ­
suant to advertisement dated 9 th
 September, 2001 held for the post

6
of APP Grade II and verification was made by the Commission in the
case of the present appellants on 3 rd
 September, 2002. 
12. In the given circumstances, when those who are lower in order
of   merit   to   the   appellants   were   appointed   by   an   order   dated   24 th
September, 2002, the appellants have no right of say in the matter
of appointment and no justification has been tendered by the State
respondent   as   to   why   their   names   were   withheld   for   two/three
years,   when   their   names   were   cleared   by   the   Commission   on   3 rd
September, 2002 and sent to the State Government and finally ap ­
pointments were made of the appellants on 23rd August, 2005 and
23rd   April,   2004   respectively   and   the   delay   indeed   in   making   ap ­
pointments   in   the   case   of   the   present   appellants   in   no   manner
could be attributable to them.   
13. In   the   given   circumstances,   when   all   other   candidates   who
had   participated   along   with   the   appellants   pursuant   to   advertise ­
ment dated 9 th
  November, 2001, on the recommendations made by
the Commission were appointed on 24 th
  September, 2002 including
those who are lower in the order of merit, there appears no reason
for withholding the names of the present appellants and merely be ­
cause   they   were   appointed   at   a   later   point   of   time,   would   not   de ­
prive them from claiming to become a member of Tamil Nadu Pen ­

7
sion   Rules,   1978,   which   is   applicable   to   the   employees   who   were
appointed on or before 1 st
 April, 2003.
14. In   the   facts   and   circumstances,   the   finding   recorded   by   the
High   Court   qua   the   present   appellants   is   not   sustainable   and   de ­
serves to be set aside.
15. The   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed   and   the   judgment   and
order   dated   19 th
  June,   2014   and   2 nd
  November,   2018   of   the   High
Court   qua   the   appellants   are   set   aside.     The   respondents   are
directed to treat the present appellants to be a member of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for all practical purposes and benefits as
member   of   the   Rules,   1978   to   which   the   appellants   are   entitled,
including retiral benefits, be made available to them.   No costs.
16.     Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.
…………....................J.
                 (AJAY RASTOGI)
   …………...................J.
                  (BELA M. TRIVEDI)
New Delhi
APRIL 25, 2022.