The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the proforma to be counter signed by the Branch Manager or the General Manager for acceptance under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960, and the rejection of estoppel in claiming pension in relation to the gratuity amount received.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent by his proceedings Letter No.16593/C/4/A.V.PO.Ka./2014 dated 27.10.2014 and the fourth respondent by his proceedings Letter No.8533/A4/TNSTC (Trivl)/Nagar/92, dated 22.09.2014 and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to send proposals to the fifth respondent under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 and consequential direction to the fifth respondent to sanction pension to the petitioner.)

1. The proceedings of the second respondent vide Letter No.16593/C/4/A.V.PO.Ka./2014 dated 27.10.2014 and the fourth respondent vide Letter No.8533/A4/TNSTC (Trivl)/Nagar/92, dated 22.09.2014, are put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. When the Transport Corporation was formed in 1975, the Government Order No.378, dated 18.04.1975, was issued to the effect that the employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department (TNSTD), who were absorbed in the Transport Corporations and completed 10 years of qualified service, would be entitled for pension from the State Department, in addition to the salary. In this connection, an option was called for from the employees, as to whether they wish to continue under the prevalent rules which is termed as Operational Subordinate Services Rules (OSSR), which is a non-pensionery Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The cut off date for exercising the option was ultimately fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as 01.04.1982.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not exercised his option for the OSSR and that the respondents had compelled him to sign in the proforma for the new Madras Liberalized Pension Rules, 1960 [MLPR].

5. The issue with regard to the petitioner's entitlement for pension for the qualifying service under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department has come up for consideration before this Court in various decisions and in one decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the case of The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and other V. Sankaran and 2 others in W.A.Nos.776 to 778 of 2011 dated 29.09.2015, the signatures obtained by the employees in the proforma was dealt with and was found that when the proforma has not been counter signed by the Branch Manager under whom the employee was working, it cannot be regarded as an acceptance and therefore, would be entitled for the pension under the New Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960.

6. The original records pertaining to the proforma claim to be given by the petitioner was called for and perused. In the proforma, it is seen that though the petitioner herein has signed and subscribed the date as 25.06.1974, such a proforma was not counter signed by the concerned Branch Manager or the General Manager of the Tamil Nadu State Tiruvallur Transport Corporation, where the petitioner was working at the relevant point of time.

7. Various other decisions, in line with the Hon'ble Division Bench order have also been passed in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. M.Ananchu Asari and others, as well as by two other learned Single Judges in the case of S. Thamburan Vs. The Secretary to Government and others passed in W.P. No.1181 of 2008, dated 08.10.2009 and in the case of A. Ayya Samy Vs. The Secretary to Government and other passed in W.P.(MD) No.7343 of 2018, dated 17.11.2021.

8. In the background of these decisions and by taking into account that the proforma was not counter signed by the Branch Manager or the General Manager, the petitioner's claim for pension requires consideration.

9. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent's Corporation submitted that since the petitioner herein had already accepted the gratuity paid to him on 30.01.1989, is estopped from claiming the pension now.

10. I am not in agreement with such a submission.