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.

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 he had rendered service for a total period of 10 years, 7 months and 8 days. He had sought the services to be considered as a pensionable one and sought retirement benefits on that particular basis. The petitioner then filed WP.No.15326/2012 seeking a direction to pay pension under the 1998 Pension Scheme. By an order daetd 08.10.2015, a direction was given to consider such representation. The impugned order came to be passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner herein.

(3) It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had been brought into regular service on 01.09.2001 and therefore, on the date of his retirement on 30.06.2011, he had not completed 10 years of service and had rather, completed only 9 years, 9 months and 29 days. It is therefore, contended that since the petitioner had put in less than 10 years of service, he is not eligible for that particular period of service to be considered as one which is eligible for grant of pension.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner however widened the arguments by pointing out the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Trust Rules. It is for that purpose, he had also impleaded the 1st respondent namely, the Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund. In the said Rules, which are binding on both the petitioner and the respondents, the following definitions/stipulations would be required to be examined for adjudicating the issues:-

''''Definition:

Unless excluded by or repugnant to the context:-

.....

[p]The ''''Actual Service'''' as defined below shall be reckoned for calculating pensionable service:-

....

[iii]In respect of all other employees, the date of regular employment or becoming the member of the Employee''s Provident Fund in the STU will be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable service.''''

(5) The learned counsel placed reliance on the above definition of ''''Actual Service'''' and stated that the date of regular employment or becoming a member of the Employees'' Provident Fund would be reckoned for the calculation as pensionable service. In this connection, the learned counsel places reliance on an information received through the Right to Information Act wherein it had been stated that the first deduction towards Provident Fund was in November 2000, the first month on which he joined the service. The learned counsel therefore stated that if that particular factor is taken into consideration on the date of retirement on 30.06.2011, he would have completed more than 10 years of service and therefore, eligible for pension.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner also put forth analternate argument by relying on Rule 13 and su