Judgment : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk with effect from 01.02.1984 on consolidated pay under the Sethupava Chathiram Panchayat Union. The post of the said Part-Time Panchayat Clerks were all re-designated as Panchayat Assistants with effect from 01.01.1991 and such Part-Time Panchayat Clerks were made Full-Time employees and brought under the time scale of pay. Thus, from 01.01.1991, the petitioner was working in the time scale of pay as Panchayat Assistant. Thereafter, he was duly promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 17.02.1998 and as Assistant with effect from 02.12.1999. Subsequently, on transfer he was appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-1 and then again reverted as Assistant on 01.10.2007. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the purpose of sanctioning the pension of the petitioner, the service period rendered by him as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk between 01.02.1984 to 01.01.1991 has not been taken into account. Similarly, the services rendered by the petitioner between 01.01.1991 to 17.02.1995 as Panchayat Assistant was also not taken into account. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition, seeking appropriate relief. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 09.02.2010, by which the Government amended the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. As per the amended Rule, the services rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving full time employment and 50% of the services rendered by an individual shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 13.06.2011, wherein the Government admitted that 50% of the services rendered by Part-Time Panchayat Clerks before they were brought into time scale of pay, shall also be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the pension. Based on the said G.O., several persons were given the benefit of pension. But the petitioner was not extended the said benefit. 4. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011 is contrary to the Statutory Rule, viz. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as it stood amended as per G.O.Ms.No.41, referred to above. But the petitioner was not extended the said benefit. 4. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011 is contrary to the Statutory Rule, viz. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as it stood amended as per G.O.Ms.No.41, referred to above. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, since the Statutory Rule provides for taking into account 50% of the services rendered only by Whole Time employees, the Part Time employees cannot have the same benefit. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, G.O.Ms.No.39 is in conflict with the Statutory Rule and therefore, the same cannot have any force. He would further submit that the said fact was brought to the notice of the Government by the fifth respondent, and thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.77, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 12.07.2013, wherein the Government has clarified now that the services rendered by Part-Time Panchayat Clerks shall not be taken into account for the purpose of pension and accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.39 stands modified. Referring to the above Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.77, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for pension by taking into account 50% of the services rendered by him as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 would also adopt the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in G.O.Ms.No.77 in Clause 4(c), it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.77 will not in any manner affect those persons who have got the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 13.06.2011, already. The learned counsel would submit that since the right to have pension having regard to 50% of the services rendered as Panchayat Clerk had already accrued to the petitioner before 12.07.2013, the petitioner is also saved by Clause 4(c) of G.O.Ms.No.77. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the Government itself has clarified that those persons who have got the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 shall not be affected, quite naturally, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be affected. 7. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the Government itself has clarified that those persons who have got the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 shall not be affected, quite naturally, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be affected. 7. But the learned counsel for the fifth respondent would vehemently contend that it is too well settled that a Statutory Rule cannot be overridden by an Administrative Instruction, Circular or Government Order. He would submit that neither G.O.Ms.No.39 nor G.O.Ms.No.77 can override Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Thus, according to the learned counsel, since the Rule prescribes that only Full-Time employee is to be taken into account, the petitioner who was a Part-Time employee as Panchayat Clerk before 01.01.1991 cannot expect the period of services rendered as Part-Time employee to be taken into account for the purpose of pension. 8. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and considered the above submissions. 9. Regarding the legal position that Statutory Rule cannot be overridden by a Government Order, Circular or Administrative Instruction, one cannot have any doubt. The Rule, of course, says that Whole Time employees alone will be taken into account. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the fundamental right of equality and equal protection, before laws. In this case, though Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, states that only the services rendered as Whole Time employees shall be taken into account, quite contrary to the same, G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.06.2011 was issued. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that in ignorance of G.O.Ms.No.41 amending the Pension Rule, the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.39. Thus according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, G.O.Ms.No.39 which was issued in ignorance of the Rule, cannot be given any weightage. In my considered opinion, it cannot be said that G.O.Ms.No.39 came to be issued in ignorance of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as it stood amended as per G.O.Ms.No.41. It is well known that before issuing any Government Order involving any financial commitment, as per the procedure of the Government, the concurrence of the Finance Department, Law Department as well as the P & AR Department should be obtained. It is well known that before issuing any Government Order involving any financial commitment, as per the procedure of the Government, the concurrence of the Finance Department, Law Department as well as the P & AR Department should be obtained. Here in this case, I have every reason to believe that before issuing G.O.Ms.No.39, the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department would have obtained the concurrence of the Finance Department, Law Department as well as P & AR Department. G.O.Ms.No.41, amending the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, was after all issued by the Finance (Pension) Department. When that be so, certainly the Finance Department would have given the concurrence for issuance of G.O.Ms.No.39 only by taking note of G.O.Ms.No.41. Whatever be the case, G.O.Ms.No.39 came to be issued and the fact remains that several persons got the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 by taking 50% of the services rendered as Panchayat Clerk calculated for the purpose of pension. 10. At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that several other persons who were not sanctioned pension having regard to 50% of the services rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks, approached this Court in W.P.No.22461 of 2008. There were 18 such persons as petitioners in the said writ petition. By order dated 21.02.2013, a learned single Judge of this Court, applying the above Government Orders, directed the Government to sanction the pension by taking into account 50% of the services rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks. In paragraph-13 of the order, the learned single Judge has observed as follows: "13. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The averments made in the writ petition go unrebutted. The specific stand of the petitioners is that Part-Time Panchayat Clerks or Full-Time Panchayat Clerks were performing the same duties, whereas nomenclature of Panchayat Clerks were given based on the income of Village Panchayat and population of the Village. If that is the case, the petitioners cannot be said to be Part-Time employees, not doing regular services, as it was merely a designation. It is for this reason, that the State Government issued G.O.(Rt)No.39 of the Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 13.06.2011 for counting 50% of the services rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks, for being added to the Government service for the purpose of pensionary benefits." 11. It is for this reason, that the State Government issued G.O.(Rt)No.39 of the Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 13.06.2011 for counting 50% of the services rendered as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks, for being added to the Government service for the purpose of pensionary benefits." 11. The above order of the learned single Judge has been implemented by the Government and those 18 persons have been benefited. The petitioner also stands in the same footing. When the Government had not challenged the order of the learned single Judge and when the Government has simply implemented the order to the benefit of those 18 employees, I do not understand as to why the Government should deny the same benefit to the petitioner who also stands in the same footing. The only explanation placed before this Court is that G.O.Ms.No.41 amending the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Had it been true, the Government would have very well sought for review of the order of the learned single Judge. But instead, the Government simply implemented the order of the learned single Judge. 12. Nextly, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent would rely on G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 12.07.2013. This Government Order amends G.O.Ms.No.39. But Clause 4(c) of the Government Order protects the benefits given to pensioners in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.39. Thus, even now, the Government has not taken a decision not to count 50% of the services rendered by the Part-Time Panchayat Clerks for the purpose of pension. The Government, as it is seen from G.O.Ms.No.77, has taken a policy decision not to disturb the benefit given to those persons, before coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.77. The petitioner, in my considered opinion, is the beneficiary of G.O.Ms.No.39 prior to G.O.Ms.No.77. It cannot be said that the beneficiaries are those who were already sanctioned pension, and those whose names were under consideration are not entitled to the benefit. G.O.Ms.No.39 has accrued a right to the petitioner. Simply because the claim of the petitioner was not promptly considered and whereas the claim of others were considered, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. It cannot be said that the beneficiaries are those who were already sanctioned pension, and those whose names were under consideration are not entitled to the benefit. G.O.Ms.No.39 has accrued a right to the petitioner. Simply because the claim of the petitioner was not promptly considered and whereas the claim of others were considered, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. In my considered view, the petitioner has got an accrued right on account of G.O.Ms.No.39 and since the same is saved by Clause 4(c) of G.O.Ms.No.77, the petitioner is also entitled for the 50% of the services rendered by him as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk, to be taken into account. 13. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that neither G.O.Ms.No.39 nor G.O.Ms.No.77 can override the Statutory Rule, I have to say that at the same time, the Fundamental Right which is sacrosanct as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be violated by a Statutory Rule. When the Government itself has taken a policy decision to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.39 to some persons, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of the petitioner alone. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in respect of those persons who retired prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.77, since right had accrued in them under G.O.Ms.No.39, the services rendered by them as Part-Time Panchayat Clerks should be taken into account and 50% of the services should be counted for the purpose of pension. This is in tune with the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a course alone will avoid discrimination. 14. In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to count 50% of the services rendered by the petitioner as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk and the subsequent service rendered by him as Full-Time regular employee, for the purpose of pension, and grant pension accordingly, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.