Dismissed

A.Kalidoss, v. The Under Secretary, Transport

Madras HC1 Aug 2024WP/30729/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman dismissed in 1982 after disciplinary action was reinstated as a fresh entrant under an 18(1) settlement and retired in 2005. He sought pension for pre-1982 service under G.O.Ms.No.378. Holding increments paid were concession/compensation and dismissal forfeited past service under Rule 21, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected W.M.P. closed.

A.Kalidoss, Vs The Under Secretary, Transport — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.30729 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.26627 of 2016

A.Kalidoss

...Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Under Secretary, Transport (TBC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶12

2.The Managing Director,

¶13

The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd.,

¶14

Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,

¶15

Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Letter No.16030/TBC-2/2015 dated 05.11.2015 of the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to pay pension to petitioner as per

¶17

Page 1 of 10

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶20

G.O.Ms.No.378 dated 18.04.1975 and G.O.No.96 dated 31.07.2015.

¶21

: For petitioner Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader, for R1, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, for R2.

¶22

******

¶23

O RDER

¶24

The above writ petition has been filed by the workman seeking

¶25

to quash the first respondent's order dated 05.11.2015, in Letter No.16030/TBC-2/2015, and pay pension as per G.O.Ms.No.378, Finance (FR.II) Department dated 18.04.1975 and G.O.(Ms)No.96, Transport (RW1) Department dated 31.07.2015.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that he had joined in

¶27

the Government service on 13.11.1967, as Conductor in the erstwhile Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, he was transferred to the then Express Wing of the

¶28

Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶30

Transport Corporation in the year 1975. While so, on 08.02.1982, he was suspended for misconduct and after enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 10.09.1982. The order of dismissal was not challenged by him. However, he requested the second respondent to grant him an appointment.

¶31

The second respondent came to a compromise and agreed to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh entrant. Accordingly, the petitioner had, thereafter, joined duty on 01.01.1987 and lastly worked at Thiruvalluvar House Depot - II at Koyambedu and had retired from service on 31.05.2005. As per the 1998 Corporation Pension Scheme, he had been sanctioned pension for the service rendered by him for the period 1987 - 2005.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.378, supra, assuring to give pension for the service rendered with the first respondent

¶33

Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶35

department. The Government Order was later modified by various Government Orders and was challenged right upto the Apex Court. Finally, in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. M.Ananchu Asari and others reported in 2003 (10) SCC 503 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rendered a finding which directed the employer to consider and treat the service rendered with the second respondent upto 01.04.1982 as qualifying service to grant pension under G.O.Ms.No.378, supra . The petitioner would submit that he is entitled to the aforesaid benefit.

¶36

Thereafter, the Government passed G.O.(Ms).No.42

¶37

dated 27.05.2005, and excluded those employees who retired after 01.09.1998, from getting pension under G.O.Ms.No.378, supra, as the Transport Corporation has introduced a pension scheme to their employees who retired after 01.09.1998. This clause 5(b) of G.O.(Ms).No.42 was challenged and the said clause was set aside.

¶38

This Court had held that the employees who retired after 01.09.1998

¶39

Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶41

are also entitled to get pension under G.O.Ms.No.378, supra . The said order of this Court was challenged by way of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.111 to 113 of 2007 and C.A.Nos.6715 to 6717 of 2010 which had ended in dismissal. A review application was filed by the State which was also dismissed on 21.07.2015.

¶42

Thereafter, the Government had proceeded to pass G.O.(Ms).No.96, supra, and agreed to give pension under G.O.Ms.No.378, supra, to those who had rendered 10 years of service upto 01.04.1982. A list of eligible members to get pension under G.O.Ms.No.378, supra, was called for. Though the petitioner had rendered 14 years of service upto 01.04.1982 and is eligible to get pension, his name was not included in the list. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.08.2015, to grant pension as per G.O.(Ms) No.96, supra, and the same has been declined by the impugned order of the first respondent.

¶43

Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶45

A counter has been filed by the second respondent inter alia contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.378, supra, since he had been terminated from service on 10.09.1982 pursuant to the disciplinary action that was initiated against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated as a fresh entrant on 01.01.1987 and had retired on 31.05.2005. The petitioner's terminal benefits have also been disbursed and no amounts were due to him. Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, clearly spells out that the dismissal or removal of a Government servant from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶47

contend that though the petitioner had been inducted as a fresh entrant, he was granted increments for the period of service already rendered by him. He would, therefore, submit that Rule 22 of the

¶48

Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶50

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, would be applicable and therefore, his past service has to be treated as qualifying service.

¶51

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other

¶52

hand, submitted that the aforesaid payments were done only by way of compensation and not granted as per the rules.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶54

This Court had directed to produce the original Service

¶55

Register of the petitioner and the same has also been produced. In the Service Register pertaining to the period from 13.11.1967 to the date of service on 10.09.1982, the service of the petitioner was closed with an endorsement “dismissal from service”. In the Service Register that has been subsequently opened after the petitioner had been reinstated as per order dated 31.12.1986, the following

¶56

Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶58

endorsement has been made:

¶59

“Removed and reinstated under 18(1) settlement as fresh entrant with the following conditions as per order No.24183/A3/TTC/86 dated 31.12.1986:

¶60

A mere reading of the above indicates that the petitioner had accepted and entered service as a fresh entrant meaning as a new employee. The increments that were paid to him were only in the form of concession / compensation and hence, the petitioner cannot seek to draw strength from the above.

¶61

Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner is

¶62

Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶64

in tune with the service particulars and the rules. I see no reason to

¶65

interfere with the same.

¶66

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶67

Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. No costs.

¶68

01.08.2024

¶69

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa

¶70

To 1.The Under Secretary, Transport (TBC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶71

2.The Managing Director, The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶72

Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssa

W.P.No.30729 of 2016

¶77

01.08.2024