The rights of the employees were considered to be crystallized as per the Supreme Court judgment and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and the court declined to expand the scope of the policy, citing potential financial implications.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the respondents in refusing to count the petitioner temporary service from 07.12.1971 to 31.12.1972 along with his regular service from 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1982 for calculating his qualifying pensionable service and thereby rejecting his claim for pension on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 10 years of qualifying service as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioner service from the date of his initial appointment to calculate his qualifying pensionable service and to pay the petitioner pension with effect from 01.01.1988 with all arrears and consequential benefits, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and award cost.)

The writ of declaration has been filed to declare the action of the respondents declining the claim of the writ petitioner to count the temporary services from 07.12.1971 to 31.12.1972 along with his regular services from 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1982 for calculating the qualifying pensionable service is null and void.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Department as Driver on 07.12.1971. The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee, despite the fact that the post of Driver was permanent. The writ petitioner was sponsored through the District Employment Exchange and accordingly appointed. On completion of 240 days of service as Driver, he was made as permanent employee and brought under the time scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1973.

3. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.378, dated 10.04.1975 stating that the absorbed employees into the newly formed Transport Corporations would be entitled for pension based on the services rendered by them in the State Transport Department. The petitioner was sent on deputation initially to the newly formed Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation and he was posted at Thiruvannamalai Depot. There was a cut off date dispute regarding the absorption in the newly formed Transport Corporations and the issues were settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

4. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M.Ananchu Asari [(2003) 10 SCC 503] held that the Government is bound to pay pension based on the assurance given by them in G.O.Ms.No.378. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself fixed the cut off date for absorption as 01.04.1982. However, the monetary benefits were directed to be granted from 01.01.1988. The Review Petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the said order, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport Department, dated 27.05.2005, implementing the orders of the Supreme Court of India. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted an application for payment of pension with all relevant documents. However, the second respondent informed the writ petitioner that he had not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying services for the purpose of grant of monthly pension. The petitioner submitted a representation pointing out that the petitioner is eligible for counting of 50% of the daily rated services for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services for grant of pension. However, the second respondent not considered the same.

6. The petitioner on medical grounds voluntarily retired from service in the year 1992. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for counting of 50% of the daily wage services, cannot be granted. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the issue regarding the cut off date and grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was settled by the Supreme Court o