Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN
M. Ranganathan – Appellant
Versus
Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records relating to the order Ka.No.30019- 1PF4/TNSTC(Vizh)/2015, dated 04.01.2016 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay pension to the petitioner from the date of retirement for the service rendered with the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation.)
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to the order in Ka.No.30019- 1PF4/TNSTC(Vizh)/2015, dated 04.01.2016 of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to pay pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement for the service rendered by him with the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation.
(2) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [Vpm] as Driver on 22.11.2000 with Staff No.4075. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. The petitioner claimed that
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Pension Trust Rules to determine the eligibility for pension based on the calculation of pensionable service.
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 eligi....
Eligibility for pension is determined by counting total service years, including periods of medical discharge if re-employed, affirming rights under Employee Provident Fund Rules.
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 pot....
A petitioner is not entitled to pension as his accumulated service does not meet the required 10 years qualifying service, reaffirming the pension rules limiting recognition of temporary service to 5....
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 consoli....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
