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.

ORDER :

Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is the eligibility and entitlement of the original writ petitioner namely S.Kannan, S/o.Subbarayan, for payment of pension who worked as a driver in the second respondent's corporation and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner died on 01.03.2014 and consequently, his legal heir namely, the second petitioner was brought on record.

2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are as under:

The original petitioner was initially appointed on a daily wage basis in Tamilnadu State Transport Department on 13.04.1967 and thereafter, his service was regularized in the said Department on 01.09.1969. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was absorbed to Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation DR0 106 with effect from 01.05.1975. While working as such in the second respondent's corporation, the petitioner was discharged from service, on medical grounds, on 15.07.1989. Thereafter, in terms of the settlement arrived at under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner was reinstated the as entrant without continuity of service on 15.09.1989 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department, dated 02.07.1989 and thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner made a claim for payment of pension before the 1^st respondent as well as the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent has not processed the pension papers. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for an information under RTI Act. In response, the 1^st respondent through , dated 14.10.2011 informed the petitioner that there is a confusion with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner and required the petitioner to clarify on that aspect. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a present writ petition making a claim of payment of pension for the service rendered in the State Transport Department as well as the 2^nd respondent's corporation.

3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and it is categorically admitted that the petitioner has completed 10 years of service in the State Transport Department from 01.09.1969 to 31.03.1982 and therefore, he is eligible for Government Pension. However, no pension is paid to the first petitioner on the ground that there is some confusion with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner as per the records available in the first respondent's corporation. Admittedly the petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999 and therefore, the birth year of the petitioner to be taken into consideration is only the year corresponding to the year 1999. The case of the petitioner is that they have not considered the birth year of the petitioner as 1949. In terms of superannuation, 1949 would be the date of birth year of the petitioner and therefore, the first respondent ought to have taken into consideration the service rendered by him in the first respondent's State Transport Department by taking the year 1949 as birth year of the first petitioner and ought have released the pension eligible for Government service.

4. It is admitted that the service rendered with effect from 01.04.1982 in the second respondent's corporation is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioner for payment of pension in terms of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employee Pension Fund. It is not in dispute that all the existing members as on 01