Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 937
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. MANIKUMAR, C.T. SELVAM, JJ.
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
V. Siva Kumar & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Appeal(MD)No.419 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.2952 of 2016
Decided On : 21-03-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Mahendran
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Arunachalam
An employee with 20 years of service is entitled to pension, and the abrupt discontinuation of pension without notice and failure to provide alternative employment constitute violations of rights.
Headnote:
Pension Scheme - Entitlement to Pension - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 47 - Rule 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Rules
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, challenged the order of the Writ Court directing the payment of pension to the respondent, who had suffered a brain stroke and was discharged from service without alternative employment. The appellant contended that the respondent was not eligible for pension due to being on leave on loss of pay on the crucial date for pension eligibility.
Finding of the Court:
The Writ Court found that the respondent, having completed 20 years of service, was entitled to pension and that the abrupt discontinuation of pension without notice was unjust. The Court also held that the appellant's failure to provide alternative employment and the violation of principles of natural justice were apparent.
Issues: Entitlement to pension under the pension scheme, eligibility criteria based on the crucial date, violation of principles of natural justice, and failure to provide alternative employment under the Persons with Disabilities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: An employee with 20 years of service cannot be denied pension, and the abrupt discontinuation of pension without notice and failure to provide alternative employment constitute violations of rights. The eligibility for pension is based on being on the rolls of the corporation on the crucial date, and the failure to provide notice of audit objections and opportunity to respond violates principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the directions of the Writ Court for the payment of pension to the respondent were upheld.
S. Manikumar, J.
Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul, represented by its General Manager, has preferred the instant appeal, challenging the order, made in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, by which, the Writ Court has held that the 1st respondent/V. Sivakumar, is entitled to pension from August 2003. The Writ Court has directed the appellant corporation to continue to pay pension, and further directed that arrears of pension from August 2003 be paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order made in the writ petition. Writ Court has further directed that pension be continuously paid to the 1st respondent from April 2011.
2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor in transport corporation on 06.08.1980. His services were regularised on 29.08.1983. He has completed 20 years of service. While so, in the year 2001, he suffered brain stroke and took treatment. His right hand and right leg were affected and hence, he was unable to move.
3. On receipt of information of the respondent's illness, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Ltd., Dindigul, has referred him to Medical Board, to find out his suitability, to the post of Conductor. The Medical Board, after examining him, by report dated 21.02.2001, found that he was unfit to work as Conductor. Thereafter, the corporation issued a show cause notice, dated 18.04.2001, asking the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The corporation has discharged the petitioner from service, by an order, dated 29.05.2001, without providing him, an alternative employment, as per Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner did not pursue his right for an alternate employment.
4. When the petitioner was in service, by a settlement dated 13.02.1999 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all the State owned Transport Corporations including the appellant, agreed to introduce and implement, a pension scheme, as a retirement benefit with effect from 01.09.1998. As per rule 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Rules, every workman, who was in service, as on 01.09.1998, would automatically become a member of the pension scheme. It is the case of the petitioner, he has to be considered as a member of the pension scheme and having served for more than 20 years, he is entitled to pension. Accordingly, till the month of July 2003, appellant paid pension, but it was abruptly stopped without any reason. In the abovesaid circumstances, the 1st respondent has filed W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying pension of the petitioner from August 2003 is illegal and consequently to direct the appellant to continue to pay him, pension with arrears from August 2003 with 18% interest.
5. Opposing the prayer sought for, appellant has contended that pension scheme was implemented with effect from 01.09.1998. However, the same was implemented with certain terms and conditions, wherein, it has been stated that those who were on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998 and continued as such, are not eligible for pension. According to them, there was an audit objection and thus, the pension paid to the 1st respondent was stopped.
6. Adverting to the above contentions and after going through the material on record, the Writ Court has found that the 1st respondent had worked for more than 20 years. On the objection that the 1st respondent was not entitled to pension, on the ground that he was on leave on loss of pay on 01.09.1998, the crucial date on which, employees of the transport corporation were brought under pension scheme, pursuant to a settlement dated 13.02.1999 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Wr
