JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Lr.No.10667-4331(141)/PTO/TNSTC(V)/2015 dated 13.07.2015 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to revise the pension for 27 years and calculate the other terminal benefits for 27 years and settle the pension arrears and other terminal benefits with interest at 12% for belated payment.)

1. The reply letter sent by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act vide letter dated 13.07.2015, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1986. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.03.1993 with reference to the charges of irregularities in dealing with the issuance of tickets.

3. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in ID No.546 of 1997 and an Award was passed. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity of service of 50% with back wages. The management implemented the Award and the petitioner was reinstated in service.

4. The writ petition filed by the Management was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. The petitioner was sanctioned with the pension and on verification, he found that his pension was lesser than that of his juniors. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act and the reply letter given by the Public Information Officer to the writ petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Pension amount is not comparable. Stepping up of pension is impermissible under the Scheme of Pension. If at all any error in the fixation of pension, that alone is to be corrected in accordance with the service particulars of the employee concerned. Thus by citing the pension received by the juniors, another pensioner though senior cannot claim stepping up of the pension. Pension is granted based on the last pay drawn of the employee concerned and thus, the comparison of junior would not arise in the matter of pension. That apart, the petitioner is questioning the fixation of pension with reference to the services rendered by him in the Transport Department.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire services are not taken into consideration or reckoned as a qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension. Such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings, which are to be done with reference to the records and the evidences made available.

7. The High Court cannot conduct a Roving Enquiry in respect of such disputed facts. This exactly is the reason why the High Court some time is passing an order to consider the representation and the said directions would warrant do no service to the cause of justice.

8. Contrarily, the litigant is back again to the High Court by filing another writ petition and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that passing an order to consider the representation or to consider the case of the writ petitioner would not do any service to the cause of justice and only set a direction would result in unnecessary prolongation of the litigation or repetition of the litigation.

9. The writ petitioner, admittedly, retired from service. In respect of the service benefits with reference to the terms and conditions of the Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the Rules applicable to the workmen. The said issues are to be adjudicated before the Labour Court. Since the petitioner was a workman irrespective of the fact whether the workman is relieved or discharged from service or attained the age of superannuation if the claim is relating to service conditions or service benefits, then all such adjud