JUDGMENT : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The writ petitioners were appointed as Thalayari / Village Assistant originally. They were working on consolidated pay. Vide G.O. (Ms)No.625 dated 06.07.1995, their services as Village Assistants came to be regularised with effect from 01.06.1995. The writ petitioners subsequently retired from service on their reaching the age of superannuation. They contended that while computing their pensionary benefits, 50% of service put in by them as Thalayari during the period prior to 01.06.1995 must be counted along with the regular service put in by them. They wanted revised pensionary proposals to be sent and sanctioned. The writ petitions were allowed by the orders impugned in these writ appeals. Questioning the same, these intra-court appeals have been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that orders passed by the learned Single Judges do not deserve to be interfered with. He pointed out that the learned Single Judges have merely followed the earlier orders passed by various Single Judge Benches and Hon'ble Division Benches. According to him, the fundamental principle of equity would be egregiously breached, if the writ petitioners were to be denied the benefit of counting 50% of service put in by them prior to 01.06.1995, when similarly placed Thalayaries have already been accorded the said benefit. 4. Invocation of the doctrine of equality is misplaced. The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in State Vs. S. Rajaram, 2021 (1) CWC 705 held as follows:- “19. It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality. A wrong order passed in one case cannot be made the basis for compelling a Public Authority to pass similar order in any other case. Even if the State implements an erroneous order passed by the Court, it cannot be precluded from challenging a similar order passed in another case, simply because Appeal was not preferred in the earlier case (Paragraph No.17 in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, 2009 (13) SCC 635 ). 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for Audit Accountant General, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, 2009 (13) SCC 635 ). 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for Audit Accountant General, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. E. Balachandran, (2021) 3 MLJ 92 had already settled the issue and had allowed batch of writ appeals filed by the Government raising the very same issues now raised in these writ appeals. The said decision was followed by a learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in S. Muthusamy Vs. The Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Manager Department, Chennai, 2024 (2) Writ L.R. 357 . Paragraph Nos.10 to 22 of the said decision read as under:- “10. For considering the prayer of the writ petitioner, the following Service Rules and Government Orders have to be taken into consideration (a) Tamil Nadu Village Servants' Service Rules , 1980. (b) Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules 1983. (c) G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. (d) Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules , 1995. (e) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978. 11. From the appointment order issued to the writ petitioner on 31.03.1984, it is clear that the petitioner has been appointed, invoking Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. A perusal of Rule 16 of the said Rules reveals that the provisions of Fundamental Rules and the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1978 are not applicable to the village servants. It has been further clarified that the post of Village Servants are non-pensionable. 12. A perusal of the Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 reveals that it is applicable to all Village Servants who were appointed under Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules 1980. 13. Rule 3 of the Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 is extracted as follows: 3. Private trade or employment: The Village Servants being “ part-time Government Servants, may take up part-time work or occupation; Provided that: (1) such part time work or occupation shall not interfere with their legitimate duties as village servants. (2) the previous permission, in writing, has been applied for and obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned if the work or occupation is confined to the charge village and from the District Collector concerned, if the work or occupation extends beyond the charge village.” 14. (2) the previous permission, in writing, has been applied for and obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned if the work or occupation is confined to the charge village and from the District Collector concerned, if the work or occupation extends beyond the charge village.” 14. A careful perusal of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Conduct Rules, 1983 reveals that the Village Servants are part time Government Servants and they are entitled to take up any other part time work or occupation subject to the condition that the said private trade or employment shall not interfere with their legitimate duties as village servants. Apart from that, a Village Servant has to obtain previous permission, in writing, if he likes to engage himself in a private trade or employment. 15. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were regularized under G.O.Ms.No.625 Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. A perusal of Government Order reveals that the Government had received several representations from the part time Village Servants to regularise them as full time Government Employees. Acceding to their request, the above said Government Order has been issued converting the part time Village Assistants as full time Government Servants in the time scale of pay of Rs.600-10-750. The said Government Order came into force from 01.06.1995. Thus the petitioner's services were regularised as full time employees in the regular time scale of pay only from 01.06.1995 onwards. 16. The Government of Tamil Nadu had framed Special Pension Rules for Tamil Nadu Village Assistants and the same is published in the Government Gazette on 27.03.2019, in exercise of the power conferred under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the said Pension Rules reveals that the Rules are called as Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 and the same is applicable to full time Village Assistants employed in the Revenue Department. 17. A perusal of Rule 4 reveals that in computing the length of service for calculation of pension and gratuity, temporary, officiating and permanent (full time) service shall be reckoned as qualifying service. A perusal of Rule 7 discloses that the Village Assistant shall be eligible for pension, if he has rendered total qualifying service of 10 years or more and discharged or retired as per Rules and orders. Rule 9 deals with payment of family pension. A perusal of Rule 7 discloses that the Village Assistant shall be eligible for pension, if he has rendered total qualifying service of 10 years or more and discharged or retired as per Rules and orders. Rule 9 deals with payment of family pension. Therefore, it is clear that the Village Assistant in the Revenue Department in the State of Tamil Nadu are governed by Special Pension Rules namely Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules. 18. Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978 is extracted as follows: 2. Application - Save as otherwise provided in these rules “these rules shall apply to all Government Servants appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments whether temporary or permanent, but shall not apply to- (a) persons in casual and daily rated employment; (b) persons paid from contingencies; (c) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; (d) members of the All-India Services; (e) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund; (f) persons who are entitled to the benefits under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, excluding those who are governed by Statutory Service Rules and belong to pensionable service.” 19. A perusal of Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules reveals that the said Rule is not applicable to certain category of the employees. Rule (f) reveals that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978 is not applicable to the persons who are entitled to the benefits under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, excluding those who are governed by Statutory Service Rules and belong to pensionable service. Therefore, it is clear that whenever an employee is governed by a Special Pension Rule, he is excluded from the purview of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978. 20. In the present case, the Village Assistants in the State of Tamil Nadu are governed by a Special Pension Rule namely Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules , 1995. In such circumstances, the question of invoking any one of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 much less, Rule 11(4) of the said Rules does not arise. 21. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported in (2021) 3 MLJ 92 (State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. In such circumstances, the question of invoking any one of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 much less, Rule 11(4) of the said Rules does not arise. 21. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported in (2021) 3 MLJ 92 (State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others Vs. E. Balachandran), after considering all the previous Division Bench Judgments, had arrived at a finding that those judgements have been rendered without taking note of the relevant provisions and they may not be a binding precedent. Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 are extracted as follows: 22. Therefore, in view of the law laid down as “ aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the appeals filed by the State are liable to be allowed. There is one more difficulty we may face. This is, with respect to catena of decisions available without taking note of the relevant provisions. Even this issue has been answered by the Full Bench of this Court referred to above, by holding that an issue which is not considered consciously leading to a decision may not be a binding precedent. Thus, illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners made reliance upon the decision rendered in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 1254 and 1255 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019 in the matter of the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue v. Chinna Karuppaiah. We are afraid that the said decision will not enable the respondents from getting the relief. As aforesaid, the relevant Rules were not brought to the notice of the Court and Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, speaks about the status of the erstwhile Village Assistants and Village Officers such as Talaiyari and Karnams. Insofar as Talaiyaris are concerned, the part-time posts were sought to be abolished by fixing fixed compensation for the said work done and thereafter, a concession was given by bringing them under regular time scale of pay. The Government Orders concerned, which we discussed, followed by the Rules framed for the aforesaid purpose was not brought to the notice of the Court. The Government Orders concerned, which we discussed, followed by the Rules framed for the aforesaid purpose was not brought to the notice of the Court. We may note at the cost of repetition, but for the Government Order passed on 06.07.1995, the respondents Talaiyaris would have continued to have the status of part-time employees only. Therefore, it is not open to them to consider even from the inception that they were full-time employees, when there was no regular full-time scale of pay on a cadre basis.” 22. In view of the above said Service Rules and the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in (2021) 3 MLJ 92 (State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others Vs. E. Balachandran), which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 15406 of 2021 dated 12.08.2022, it is clear that the petitioner's Services between 31.03.1984 and 01.06.1995 are part time services and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the pensionable services in view of Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Village Assistants' Pension Rules . Any reliance upon Rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, is of no help to the writ petitioner, in view of the fact that the said Pension Rules is not applicable to the writ petitioner.” 6. We fully endorse and approve the approach adopted above. Persons similarly placed as that of the writ petitioners originally had field day. But their luck ran out on 26.02.2021 when the Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the writ appeals filed by the Government. The said order was also not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order impugned in these writ appeals are set aside and the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.