The court upheld the principle that an employee's reinstatement and continuity of service must be recognized for pension calculations, as affirmed by the Labour Court and High Court decisions.

ORDER :

The petitioner an unfortunate employee of the respondent Transport Corporation, retired from service on 31.12.2006 after a period of 26 years has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate his pension benefits by counting his period of service as 26 years, instead of 18 years.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pension benefits were calculated by taking into account of the petitioner's service as 18 years, instead of 26 years.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the 2^nd respondent transport Corporation on 23.01.1981, his services were regularised on 01.09.1982, he continuously served for 26 years and retired from service on 31.12.2006. However during the year 1990, he caused an accident and therefore he was imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service. This order of dismissal from service was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Madurai in ID.No.275 of 1990, which was allowed by order dated 01.12.1992 with a direction to the respondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages. This order of the Labour Court dated 01.12.1992 was challenged by the respondent corporation before this Court in WP.No.11972 of 1993. Pending this writ petition, the 2^nd respondent has ordered for reinstatement on 15.11.1995. The above writ petition filed by the respondent corporation was dismissed on 06.06.2000, which was not challenged by the respondent corporation. Therefore, the order of the writ court became final. In the meantime, this writ petitioner retired from service and claimed for his retirement benefits. Since only 18 years of service was taken into account for calculating pension benefits, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.10434 of 2008 seeking a mandamus to the respondents to take into the service of six years also as per the award of the Labour Court dated 01.12.1995 and this court allowed the writ petition by order dated 19.11.2008 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. However the said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent corporation by order dated 30.01.2009. Challenging this order, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing a writ petition in WP(MD)No.1298 of 2011 seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent corporation to consider his period of service as 26 years, instead of 18 years and this writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.04.2012 as under:

“9. The sole issue is as to whether the Corporation is justified in not computing the period from 21.12.1989 to 16.11.1995 for granting pension. On 21.12.1989, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The Labour Court passed an award on 01.1.21992 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. However the corporation filed the writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, he was reinstated on 17.11.995. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 06.06.2000, ie., the award of the Labour Court was confirmed. In these circumstances, I am of the view, the corporation is not justified in not calculating the period from 21.12.1989 to 16.11.1995 for granting pension. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take into account the period between 21.12.1989 and 16.11.1995 for grant of pension. However it is made clear that if the pension rules provides for contribution for this period from the petitioner, the corporation is directed to contribute the same and the said payment could be adjusted from the arrears of pension payable from 0