THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
P. Raju - Petitioner
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary, Transport Department - Respondent
W.P. No. 514 of 2019
Decided On : 19-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the pension claim (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's counterarguments on service calculation (Para 4) |
ORDER :
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the records.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had joined the service of the erstwhile Transport Department as a Conductor on 19.11.1971; that his services were made permanent and he was brought into time scale of pay with effect from 01.12.1972; and that pursuant to a policy decision taken by the 1st respondent, he was sent on deputation to the 3rd respondent Corporation.
2.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was deputed to the 3rd respondent Corporation, the Government had approved pension for the erstwhile employees of the Transport Department from the date of absorption; that the aforesaid issue was the subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by judgment reported in 2003 (10) SCC 503, held that the cut-off date for absorption of employees of the erstwhile Transport Department into the Transport Corporation would be 01.04.1982 and also issued directions to sanction pension by counting service up to 31.03.1982.
2.2. The petitioner further contended that the Government once again took the stand that employees governed by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Scheme with effect from 01.09.1998 would not be entitled to a separate pension for the service rendered in the Transport Department; that the aforesaid decision gave rise to another round of litigation; and that the Division Bench of this Court held that the employees of the erstwhile Transport Department would be entitled to a separate and independent pension, in addition to the pension for the service rendered in the Transport Corporation; that the civil appeal filed against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also the review petitions filed thereafter.
2.3. The petitioner further contended that after joining the Transport Department on 19.11.1971 and he worked in the said department till 30.11.1972 and thereafter, upon being deputed to work with the 3rd respondent, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2002; that the 3rd respondent granted him pension for the period of service rendered by him from 01.04.1982 to 30.06.2002; that after the disposal of the civil appeal by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the 3rd respondent called upon him to submit an application for sanction of pension for the service rendered in the Transport Department and accordingly, he submitted his application on 21.04.2018; that after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 31.07.2015 by the 1st respondent, sanctioning monthly pension to employees who had rendered service in the erstwhile Transport Department; that the petitioner had made a representation on 26.07.2017 seeking sanction of monthly pension, pointing out that he had rendered the minimum eligible qualified pensionable service of 10 years in the Tamil Nadu Transport Department; that the 3rd respondent however, by order dated 05.09.2017 had rejected his claim for pension on the ground that he did not have the total qualifying service of 10 years and thus, he is not entitled for pension for his services in the Transport Department.
2.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he was appointed as a Conductor on 19.11.1971 in a regular vacancy, it was the prevailing practice to place the Drivers and Conductors so appointed on a daily wage basis and to make them permanent on completion of 240 days of service; that accordingly, the petitioner was made permanent on 01.12.1972 and brought under the time scale of pay. Hence, the respondents are bound to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner o
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....
Point of Law : A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.
Temporary service against substantive government post, continued without interruption or repatriation beyond limited secondment period, counts fully as qualifying service for pension under CCS Pensio....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.