Dismissed

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Ramadoss

Madras HC6 Jun 2014WA/2093/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation seeking to set aside a lower court order granting pension to an ex-serviceman driver. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the employee qualified for pension based on work from EPF membership date.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of pension to be paid to the respondent within four weeks of the order.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs S.Ramadoss — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 06.6.2014

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

Writ Appeal No.2093 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶8

1.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd., rep.by its Managing
Director, Vazhuthareddy, Villupuram.
2.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Region, rep.by
its General Manager, Rangapuram, Vellore-9.
3.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
(Villupuram) Ltd., rep.by its General Manager
Thenimalai, Thandrampattu Road,
Tiruvannamalai. ...Appellants
Vs
S.Ramadoss ...Respondent

¶9

APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 4.10.2012 made in W.P.No.27422 of 2008.

¶10

praying to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in letter No. 19043/L5/TNSTC (V)/T.Malai/2008 dated 12.09.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner full monthly pension with effect from 1.4.08 every month together with interest at the rate of 18% Award costs.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.Ajaykhose for Mr.R.Krishnasamy

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J

¶15

The official respondents in W.P.No.27422 of 2008 are the appellants herein.

¶16

The respondent herein prayed for sanction of pension and it was rejected by the third respondent on 12.9.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed the said writ petition, which, after contest, came to be allowed on 4.10.2012, forcing the appellants to file this appeal.

¶17

The facts leading to the filing of the appeal would disclose that the respondent/writ petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and after his discharge, he was engaged on daily basis as a driver from 4.1.1995 through Ex-Serviceman Welfare Board on daily rated monthly paid basis. On 24.7.1997, the respondent got appointed in the services of the first appellant as a driver through Employment Exchange. On 1.8.1997, the respondent was enrolled as the member of the employees' provident fund of the first respondent Corporation. On 3.8.1997, respondent joined duty on daily rated basis. On 18.12.1998, the services of the respondent were confirmed with effect from 3.8.1998. On 13.2.1999, transport corporations agreed to introduce a pension scheme for transport employees with effect from 1.9.1998 in lieu of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995.

¶18

On 15.12.2000, the Government of Tamilnadu issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.135 notifying the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules. On 31.3.2008, the respondent attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. After retirement, he sent a representation seeking pension. As no orders were passed on the representation, the respondent earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16192 of 2008 seeking a direction to consider the representation of the respondent for pension. The third respondent passed an order on 12.9.2008 rejecting the request of the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed another writ petition in W.P.No.27422 of 2008, which came to be allowed by an order dated 4.10.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the official respondents.

¶19

Mr.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the appellants/official respondents in the writ petition vehemently contended that since the services of the respondent were regularized with effect from 3.8.1998, the period of service is to be reckoned as only 9 years six months and 21 days and since the respondent does not have the qualifying service for pension and since he had fallen short by five months under, he is not eligible for pension and this vital aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Per contra, Mr.V.Ajaykhose, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 20.4.2010 made in W.A.(MD) No.94 of 2010 and another judgment dated 25.8.2010 made in W.A. (MD) No.387 of 2010 rendered by two Division Benches of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and would submit that the issue was considered in those two cases wherein it has been held that the period to be reckoned for pensionable service should be as on the date of becoming a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and in this case, the petitioner became the member of the provident fund on 1.8.1997. If that period is taken into consideration, he has qualified service of 10 years and hence, he is eligible for pension and it was taken into consideration rightly by the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition.

¶22

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Admittedly, the respondent became a member of the provident fund on 1.8.1997. Thereafter, his services came to be regularized vide order dated 18.12.1998 with effect from 3.8.1998. As per the two decisions rendered by the Division Benches of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the period is to be calculated from the date on which the employee became the member of the employees' provident fund. Further, in this case, the respondent became the member on 1.8.1997. If that period is taken into consideration, the respondent has qualifying service of more than ten years and is eligible to get pension.

¶24

It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that no appeal has been filed against the above cited judgments of the Division Benches and the said judgments were also implemented, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the light of the said fact that this Court finds no error or infirmity in the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, and finds no merit in this appeal.

¶25

Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the above M.P. is also dismissed. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CO) Dated:09.07.2014

¶27

/true copy/

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

To
1.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Vazhuthareddy, Villupuram.
2.The General Manager
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Region,
Rangapuram, Vellore-9.
3.The General Manager
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Thenimalai, Thandrampattu Road,
Tiruvannamalai.
1 cc to Mr.P. Paramasivadoss, Advocate, Sr. 23229
1 cc to Mr.V.Ajoykhose, Advocate, SR. 23071
WA.No.2093 OF 2013
& MP.No.1 of 2013
KU (CO)
kk 9/7

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Ramadoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Ramadoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thilagam Vs D.Sabitha I.A.S

P.Rajasubramain Vs the Indian Overses Bank

Coimbatore District Wholesale Vs Coimbatore City Municipal

S.Esakkiyadum Perumal, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.a.Parimala Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S Imk Human Resources Vs Protector Genl. of Emigrants/