The main legal point established in the judgment is that only regular employees in the regular roll are eligible for availing the benefit of the Pension Fund Scheme, and temporary services of consolidated pay employees and daily wage employees cannot be taken into consideration for reckoning qualifying services.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.03.2015 in Letter No.44/P2/TNSTCEPFT/2015-1463 of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner full monthly pension with effect from 01.04.2013 every month, together with arrears and other consequential benefits and interest at the rate of 18%, award costs and render justice.)

The lis on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.03.2015, declining to grant full monthly pension with effect from 01.04.2013 along with the consequential benefits.

Facts of the case:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper/Cleaner (Trainee) for three years from 31.03.1997 on a consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month for the first year, at the rate of Rs.650/- for the second year and at the rate of Rs.850/- for the third year respectively by an order dated 09.10.1997. The Provident Fund was deducted from the salary of the writ petitioner from the year 1996 onwards.

3. The services of the writ petitioner was regularised in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay by an order dated 07.09.2006. The time scale of pay of Rs.4270-60-5710 was granted from 01.07.2006. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.03.2013, on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. The petitioner states that she has completed 17 years and 3 months of qualifying services and her pensionable services have to be taken into consideration from the date on which she became a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. Thus, the petitioner is eligible for pension. The respondents paid the gratuity to the writ petitioner. However, pension and other terminal benefits have been denied to the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner made a representation on 05.03.2015 to settle the pension from 01.04.2013. The 2nd respondent rejected the same vide proceedings dated 24.03.2015 on the ground that the services of the writ petitioner was regularised with effect from 01.08.2006 and therefore, she had completed seven years of service and for sanctioning of pension, the minimum qualifying services would be ten years as per the Pension Rules. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that she had not completed ten years of minimum pensionable service. The definition of “Actual Service” as per Rule 2(p)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'TNSTCEPF' Rules) stipulates, all the employees, who became the member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the State Transport Undertakings (STU) is also eligible and the period of services are to be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable services. The “Pensionable Service” defined under Rule (2)(v) of TNSTCEPF Rules denotes that the “Pensionable Service” means the service rendered by the member for which the contributions have been received. In the present case, the contributions are received from the writ petitioner from the year 1996 onwards. Therefore, the entire consolidated pay services rendered till the date of regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner are also to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of the pensionable services.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is an eligible member as defined under Rule 2(q) of the TNSTCEPF Rules. She was an existing member as contemplated under the said Rules. Therefore, the petitioner, who was on the rolls as on 01.09.1998 is to be included as an eligible member under the said Rules and consequently, all pension benefits under the said Rules are to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner.

7