Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as an employee covered under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 prior to its amendment, dated 01.04.2003. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for TRB examination and consequently, participated in the examination conducted on 21.04.2002. The results were published on 25.05.2002 and the certificate verification was held on 04.03.2003. Thereafter, the counselling was conducted on 26.03.2003 and the petitioner was appointed by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.03.2003 as BRTE at Marungapuri Block. Under the instruction given in the said appointment order, the petitioner was called upon to produce Medical Fitness Certificate. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and got selected and appointed only under the said reservation category. The petitioner applied for fitness certificate before the Medical Board. When she wanted to join on 31.03.2003 itself, she was not permitted to join for want of Medical Fitness Certificate. Thereafter, the Medical Board issued the Medical Fitness Certificate and consequently, the petitioner joined the duty on 04.04.2003. The Government modified the pension scheme and issued a new scheme called 'Contributory Pension Scheme' through G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 06.08.2003. The said scheme takes effect from 01.04.2003. As per the said G.O., persons who were appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are governed only by the new pension scheme called 'Contributory Pension Scheme'. Since, the petitioner was appointed on 26.03.2003, she is not governed by the said Government Order and consequently, she has to be treated only under the old scheme, prevailing prior to the Contributory Pension Scheme brought through G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 06.08.2003. Therefore, when the petitioner's claim to be treated under the old scheme was not considered, she has approached this court by filing the above said writ petition. 3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was selected under the special quota, reserved for physically handicapped and attended the counseling held on 26.03.2003 and got appointed at Marungapuri Block. It is also admitted by the first respondent that the petitioner could get the medical certificate only on 04.04.2003 and joined duty on the very same day. 4. It is also admitted by the first respondent that the petitioner could get the medical certificate only on 04.04.2003 and joined duty on the very same day. 4. It is further stated by the first respondent that though the appointment order was served on the petitioner on 26.03.2003, the same cannot be construed as if the petitioner was appointed on the same date, as she had not fulfilled the condition of producing the disability certificate. 5. It is further stated by the first respondent that the date of recruitment of the petitioner is only on 04.04.2003 and therefore, she bound by the New Contributory Pension Scheme, as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.259/Financial, dated 06.08.2003. 6. The forth respondent filed a separate counter affidavit and stated that the new contributory pension scheme takes effect from 01.04.2003 and the new pension scheme is applicable to all the employees, who are recruited on or after 01.04.2003. Therefore, the persons who were appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not eligible to contribute GPF Subscription under existing GPF Rules and they are bound by the new Contributory Pension Scheme only. 7. It is further stated by the fourth respondent that the petitioner joined duty only on 04.04.2003 and therefore, she is not entitled to claim GPF Subscription Scheme and on the other hand, she is entitled to claim only under Contributory Pension Scheme. 8. It is further stated by the fourth respondent that the Government through letter, dated 07.09.2006 clarifying the position that even in respect of candidates, who have selected prior to 01.04.2003 and joined service only after 01.04.2003, the Contributory Pension Scheme alone should be applied and not the earlier scheme. 9. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very appointment order issued by the second respondent, dated 26.03.2003 would show that the petitioner was appointed on 26.03.2003 itself and she was given a week's time to join duty. 11. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Medical Board issued the Medical Certificate only on 04.04.2003 and therefore, the petitioner joined the duty on the very same date, after obtaining the said Certificate. 12. 11. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Medical Board issued the Medical Certificate only on 04.04.2003 and therefore, the petitioner joined the duty on the very same date, after obtaining the said Certificate. 12. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Medical Board was meeting once in a week only and therefore, the petitioner could able to get the certificate only on 04.04.2003, being the immediate functioning date for the Medical Board. Therefore, when the very appointment itself came to be made as early as on 26.03.2003, certainly prior to 01.04.2003, the respondents cannot apply the said G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 06.08.2003 and bring the petitioner under the Contributory Pension Scheme. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent vehemently opposed the petitioner's claim by stating that the fact remains that the petitioner joined duty only on 04.04.2003 and therefore, the said date has to be taken into consideration to find out as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the previous scheme or subsequent Contributory Pension Scheme. He further submitted that when the Government itself had clarified the position stating that the persons who have been selected prior to 01.04.2003 and joined after 01.04.2003 also should be brought under the Contributory Pension Scheme, the petitioner cannot seek the relief under the present writ petition. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the amended Rules of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 also says that this Rule shall not apply to persons appointed on or after 01.04.2003. He further submitted that Rule 11 of the said Rules specifically says that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date, he takes charge of the post. Therefore, when the petitioner admittedly joined the service only on 04.04.2003, she cannot seek the relief in this writ petition. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent further relied on an unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.7628 of 2005, dated 22.11.2010, in support of his submission that the petitioner, even though appointed earlier, cannot get the benefit as she joined the duty only on the subsequent date. 16. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 17. 16. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 17. Un-disputably, an order of appointment was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 26.06.2003, through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.68578/C20/C5/02. A perusal of the said order only shows that the petitioner was appointed on the said date itself. The order does not stipulate that the said order of appointment is either provisional or otherwise or it takes effect from some other day. On the other hand, a clause found in the said order only shows that the petitioner was given a week's time to join duty. Thus, it is manifestly clear that for all practical purposes, the date of appointment of the petitioner is to be taken only as 26.03.2003 and not as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 18. No doubt, the petitioner joined duty only on 04.04.2003. The reason for joining only on 04.04.2003 has been explained by the the petitioner by stating that she could able to get the Medical Fitness Certificate from the Medical Board only on 04.04.2003, as the Board was functioning once in a week. The said fact also not disputed by the first respondent in his counter affidavit. On the other hand, it is admitted by them that the Board had issued the certificate only on 04.04.2003 and the petitioner also joined duty on the very same day. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with in joining the duty after 31.03.2003. 19. At any event, I have already found that very order of appointment appointed the petitioner on 26.03.2003. If such appointment was made on 26.03.2003, whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of the earlier GPF scheme, which was existing prior to the Contributory Pension Scheme is the question to be considered now. While considering the said question, it is necessary to look into G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 06.08.2003 is the question to be considered now. A perusal of the said Government Order only says that the Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced to the newly recruited employees, who were recruited on or after 01.04.2003. The relevant clause in 3(i) of the said G.O. is extracted hereunder:- “3(i). A new Contributory Pension Scheme based on defined contributions will be introduced to the newly recruited employees. This will apply to all employees who are recruited on or after 01.04.2003.” 20. The relevant clause in 3(i) of the said G.O. is extracted hereunder:- “3(i). A new Contributory Pension Scheme based on defined contributions will be introduced to the newly recruited employees. This will apply to all employees who are recruited on or after 01.04.2003.” 20. On going by the language of the said Government Order, more particularly the clause 3(i), there will not be any difficulty to say that the said Government Order is applicable to persons, who are appointed on or after 01.04.2003. The word 'recruited' cannot be construed or taken to mean 'joined' Certainly, the word 'recruited' has to have a related meaning of the word 'appointed'. When the 'recruitment' is the action of the employer, 'joining the duty' is the action of the employee. Both are to be seen with different connotation. When that being the position, in my considered view, the said G.O.No.259 having been made only in respect of persons, who have been recruited on or after 01.04.2003, the same cannot be applied to the petitioner's case, who was admittedly recruited earlier to 01.04.2003. 21. No doubt, the Government issued a clarification on 07.09.2006 through a letter issued to the Deputy Secretary to Government, in which it is stated that even persons, who have been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission prior to 01.04.2003 and joined in service after 01.04.2003 should be brought under Contributory Pension Scheme only. Even by reading of the above said communication of the Deputy Secretary to Government, it only says that the candidates, who have been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission prior to 01.04.2003 and joined the service after 01.04.2003 should be brought under Contributory Pension Scheme. Therefore, the intention was to apply the Contributory Pension Scheme, even in respect of the persons, who were selected, but not appointed. It is needless to say that mere selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is not enough and complete, unless there is an appointment order appointing the persons to a particular place. But in this case, the petitioner was not merely recruited, but also appointed on 26.06.2003 itself by the second respondent. It is needless to say that mere selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is not enough and complete, unless there is an appointment order appointing the persons to a particular place. But in this case, the petitioner was not merely recruited, but also appointed on 26.06.2003 itself by the second respondent. At any event, even assuming that the said letter is intended to persons like the petitioner also, in my considered view, the clarificatory letter cannot be issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government to clarify a G.O, which came to be issued by the Order of the Governor. When the said Government Order was also brought by way of amendment under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and as such, having a statutory force, the same cannot be clarified by a letter by the Deputy Secretary to Government. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in this aspect as well. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent relied on a decision of the learned single Judge of this court made in W.P.(MD)No.7628 of 2005, dated 22.11.2010. I have perused the said judgement. The fact of the said case is that the petitioner therein was originally selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 09.11.2011 and however, his result was withheld for verifying certain details. Thereafter, on 23.04.2004, the Government passed G.O. appointing the petitioner therein, as 'Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. Therefore, the learned single Judge has taken those facts into consideration and by finding that the very appointment of the petitioner therein was made only 24.03.2004, he was bond by the Contributory Pension Scheme only and not by the earlier scheme. I find that the facts of the present case are totally different and distinguishable from the facts of the case relied on by the fourth respondent. In this case, as the very appointment itself was made on 26.03.2003 itself, there is no question of raising any doubt with regard to the date of appointment. Therefore, the only question left open to be considered is as to whether the G.O.Ms.No.259 is applicable to the present case. As I have already pointed out, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, that the petitioner having been appointed on 26.03.2003, she is entitled to be considered only under the old scheme. Therefore, the only question left open to be considered is as to whether the G.O.Ms.No.259 is applicable to the present case. As I have already pointed out, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, that the petitioner having been appointed on 26.03.2003, she is entitled to be considered only under the old scheme. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent further relied on the Rule 11 to say that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief. 23. A Perusal of the Rule 11 only shows that it deals with counting of qualifying service, for which purpose the Rule 11 says that qualifying service of the Government service shall commence from the date, he takes charge of the post, to which he is first appointed. Here, the issue is not for the commencement of the qualifying service. Therefore, in my considered view, Rule 11 will not have any role to play while considering the issue in the present case. 24. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I find every justification in allowing the prayer sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.