Writ petition seeking pension and retirement benefits dismissed because petitioner had only 7 years of service by 1982 to avail G.O.Ms.No.42 benefits. Court noted earlier dismissal by Madurai Bench and discharged its conscience due to petitioner's age.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.No.18797/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.No.18797/2016
T.Ramasamy
... Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd Kumbakonam Division, [Formerly of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd] Kumbakonam 612 001.
... Respondent
Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's sincere service of 33 years as a Carpenter in the State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam and order for payment of pension and other retirement benefits along with interest from the petitioner's date of retirement accumulated from 30.03.1995 with future benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chinnasamy For Respondent : Mr.C.Senapathi
1
WP.No.18797/2016
(1)
ORDER
(2) The petitioner herein had been originally appointed as Carpenter in SVBS Private Bus Transport on 01.05.1969. That particular Bus Transport Corporation Service was nationalised by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 01.03.1972. The petitioner then joined the respondent on daily wages as Carpenter. His services were finally regularised on 01.05.1975 and his scale of pay was fixed granting basic pay, increment and other benefits. The petitioner then took voluntary retirement and severed his connections with the respondent. He then approached the Labour Court seeking necessary relief by filing a Computation Petition in the year 2011. Thereafter, there was a bifurcation of the Labour Court and it was finally renumbered as
2
WP.No.18797/2016
CP.No.4/2018. During the pendency of the Claim Petition, the petitioner also filed WP.[MD] No.5786/2020, again seeking a direction to the respondent to pay pension to the petitioner.
(3) The petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005. it is claimed that those who were in service for a period of 10 years as on 01.04.1982 to be brought into service for which pension would be granted. The petitioner claims that since he had been absorbed in the respondent in the year 1972, as on 1982, he had put in 10 years of service and therefore, his service should be so considered for grant of pension. However, the fact is that the petitioner was absorbed only in the year 1975 and therefore, as on 1982, he had put in only 7 years of service. Noting all these facts, a Learned Single Judge in the Madurai Bench, by an order dated 28.04.2022, dismissed WP[MD] No.5786/2020. It is also seen that even when that writ petition had been filed, the present writ petition itself was also pending, which had been filed in the year 2016. Thus, the petitioner appears to have not only filed a Computation Petition before the Labour Court, but a writ petition before the Madurai Bench and another writ petition before
3
WP.No.18797/2016
this Court seeking practically the same relief, namely, to consider his
service as being regularised from 1972 till 1892 and therefore, seeking the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 27.05.2005 and seeking pension to be paid.
''7...Even on merits, the petitioner has not established that he is entitled for the relief. Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 76 years, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost.''
4
WP.No.18797/2016
had put in 10 years of service till 1982 and taking into consideration his age, the petitioner should be granted pension for the services rendered. But the fact is that his services were regularised only in the year 1975 and therefore, he had not put in 10 years of service as on 1982. Let me also go back to the very same reason for not imposing costs, namely, the age of the petitioner herein.
(6) The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
04.09.2023
AP Internet : Yes
To
The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd Kumbakonam Division, [Formerly of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd] Kumbakonam 612 001.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
5
WP.No.18797/2016
AP
WP.No.18797/2016
04.09.2023
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and retirement benefits considering his services were regularised in 1975, not 1972, thus failing to meet the 10-year threshold under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 2
Whether this Court can entertain the present writ petition after dismissing an identical claim before the Madurai Bench?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Ramasamy
The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd Kumbakonam Division
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
