Entitlement to family pension under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee's Pension Rules/Schemes, 1998 is determined based on the date of regular employment or becoming a member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the State Transport Undertaking, and when a person makes a contribution for pension, they are entitled to receive pension from the date of contribution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the monthly family pension of the petitioner under Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations Employee''s Pension Rules/Schemes, 1998 as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to pay the family pension of the petitioner under the TNSTCE Pension Scheme, 1998, from 01.06.2018, with arrears as revised from time to time, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and also to diret the respondents to pay all other terminal benefits payable to her including grantuity, social security scheme amount, the petitioner''s husband''s PF accumulations, Refund of contribution made by her husband towards Medical, Engineering, Polytechnic Colleges and Institute of Road Transport with interests at 12% per annum, award costs.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare that the action of the respondents in not paying the monthly family pension to the petitioner under Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee''s Pension Rules/Schemes, 1998, as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the family pension under the 1998 Scheme from 01.06.2018 with arrears as revised from time to time, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also to direct the respondents to pay all other terminal benefits payable to her including gratuity, social security scheme amount, Provident Fund accumulations and refund of contribution made by her husband towards Medical, Engineering, Polytechnic Colleges and Institute of Road Transport with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and award costs.

2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wage basis on 10.04.2002 by the 3rd respondent. He worked at Thiruppuvanam Branch, Madurai Region and completed 240 days of service within a period of one year on 08.02.2003. The 2nd respondent ought to have regularised his services with effect from 08.02.2003. As per the settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act of the year 1986, the services of Drivers and Conductors shall be regularised on completion of 240 days of service within a year. The petitioner''s husband completed 240 days of service from May, 2002 to 08.02.2003. After March, 2003 also, he was continuously engaged as Driver without any break. His services were regularised only with effect from 01.09.2005. Though his service was regularised with effect from 01.09.2005, he became the member of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee''s Provident Fund Trust as early as on 25.05.2002, on the date on which he was originally appointed. The Provident Fund contributions were also deducted from the salary. The employer contribution was also remitted from the date of his initial appointment to the accounts of the 4th respondent-Trust.

3. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 28.05.2018, after completion of 16 years of service in the post of Driver leaving behind three legal heirs, i.e., (i) wife; (ii) daughter; and (iii) son. The 2nd respondent has not paid the petitioner family pension. On enquiry, the officials of the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that since her husband''s services were confirmed only after 01.04.2003, i.e., only from 01.09.2005, he was not entitled to pension in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee''s Pension Scheme, 1998. They informed the petitioner that he was covered only by the Contributory Pension Scheme, which came into force from 01.04.2003. But since the Rules were not framed and notified in the New Contributory Pension Scheme, they told that they cannot even pay pension under the New Contributory Pension Scheme and they would pay only the entire Provident Fund Contributions available in the petitioner''s husband''s account.

4.