The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 13(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules in determining eligibility for pension benefits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3037 of 2014.)

T.RAJA, ACJ.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3037 of 2014, accepting the case of the writ petitioner viz., Perumal (died) that he is eligible to get pension as he was put in qualifying pensionable service viz., 9 years and 8 months, which has been rounded off to 10 years as per Rule 13(a) of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, which is given as under:

“13.DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE

The eligible service shall be determined as follows:

(a) In the case of a “New Entrant” entering into service on or after 01.09.1998, the “actual service” shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off Page 2 of 9 to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.”

2. Heard the parties on both sides.

3. Writ Petitioner joined in the service of the Appellants'' Corporation as a driver on daily wages with effect from 11.09.1985 and his service was confirmed from 01.09.1986. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 22.07.1996 alleging that on 11.05.1996, he had come in a drunken mood and shouted at the security guard and abused him in filthy language. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the appellants'' Corporation and not being satisfied with the same, the second appellant conducted a domestic enquiry and submitted a report on 03.10.1996, holding that charges were proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 15.11.1996 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation of imposing major punishment of dismissal from service on 03.12.1996. The Writ Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.3/2000 and the Labour Court in its award dated 31.10.2001, held that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and ordered for reinstatement without backwages and continuity of service.

4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the first appellant filed a Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9125 of 2003 and the writ petitioner also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.34599 of 2005, seeking a direction to pay last drawn wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge directed the second appellant to comply with the provisions of Section 17(B) by taking last drawn wages as Rs.3,900/-. Finally, last drawn wages were also paid and the appellants'' Corporation reinstated the writ petitioner in service with retrospective effect from 31.10.2001 and thereafter, regularized the service on 01.07.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was also issued with another charge memo which was finally ended up in imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months. Thereafter, when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2012, he made an application for payment of pensionary benefits, but the same was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner is having only nine years and eight months as a qualifying service and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. According to the writ petitioner, as per Rule 13(a) of Chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, fraction of service of six months or more has to be treated as one year and service less than six months shall be ignored. This has been refused and therefore, the writ petitioner came before this Court and the learned Single Judge applying the said rule, has allowed the Writ Petition, as against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants'' Corporation.

5. This Court, in similar circumstances, has dealt with an identical issue in the case of R.Veeraiyhan Vs. The Management of Tamil N