Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
K. Narayana Pillai - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department and Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.15807 of 2021
Decided On : 28-08-2024
MANDAMUS - PENSION - The court addressed the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to sanction family pension, emphasizing that the petitioner had voluntarily opted for the OSSR Scheme, which precluded the possibility of pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules. The court interpreted the declaration made by the petitioner as a final and binding choice, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for the sanction and payment of family pension for his service in the erstwhile State Express Transport Corporation, despite having opted for the OSSR Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had voluntarily chosen to be governed by the OSSR Scheme, which explicitly excluded the option for pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules. The court noted the petitioner's declaration from 1974 as a decisive factor.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a family pension despite having opted for the OSSR Scheme, and whether the delay in filing the petition affects the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the option exercised by the petitioner to be governed by the OSSR Scheme was final and binding, thus negating any claim for pension under the alternative rules.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
(Abdul Quddhose, J.) :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and pay petitioner family pension for his Government service rendered in the erstwhile State Express Transport Corporation.)
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction and pay pension for the services rendered by him in the erstwhile State Transport Corporation.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. They would categorically state that since the petitioner has opted for OSSR Scheme [Tamil Nadu Transport Department Operational Subordinate Retiring Invalid and Compassionate Gratuity (Non Pension Establishment Rules)], the question of granting pension does not arise.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Transport Corporation has also placed the service records pertaining to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner on 16.12.1974 has submitted a declaration to the respondent Transport Corporation that he does not like to be governed by the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 28.03.1974 and he voluntarily opts to be governed by OSSR Scheme. The declaration submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Transport Corporation on 16.12.1974, is reproduced hereunder:
I K.Narayana Pillai (Name), working as Driver (Category) (St.No.) 5127 in the Ayyanavaram (Depot/Workshop) having read the contents of G.O.Ms.No.212, Transport Dept., dated 28.03.1974 hereby declare that “I do not like to be governed by the provisions of this G.O. and voluntorily opt to be governed by my existing terms and conditions of service.”
The option once exercised shall be final. Those who do not exercise any option shall automatically come under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960.”
4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in the year 2021, though he retired from service on 30.06.1994. Both on the ground of laches and on the ground that the petitioner himself has voluntarily opted to be governed under OSSR Scheme, the question of payment of pension to the petitioner, as sought for in this Writ Petition does not arise.
5. In the result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Timely filing of petitions and the settlement of benefits at the time of retirement are crucial factors considered by the court in deciding on pensionary benefits.
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.
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....
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....
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
