Family pension under 1998 Scheme payable for entire service from joining date despite post-2003 confirmation, on death in harness.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Since, the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, the same are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the records. For convenience, the facts as set out in W.P.No.1068 of 2019 are being referred to.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her husband, late Thirumalivasu, was employed as a Conductor in the first respondent Corporation from 21.02.1999; that on being appointed as Conductor, he was enrolled as a member to the Provident Fund; that he was brought under daily wage service from 21.02.2000; that his services were confirmed pursuant to a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with effect from 01.09.2005; and that he was brought under timescale of pay from the date of confirmation of service.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband had deceased on 30.01.2017 in harness; and that though the respondents settled all the terminal benefits, it did not pay the pension.

5. Petitioner also contended that on her husband being appointed in the first respondent Corporation on 21.02.1999, the respondent Corporation made deductions towards Provident Fund Contributions and the employer contribution of Provident Fund was also remitted to the second respondent trust till March, 2008.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the respondents settled all the terminal benefits due to her husband for his service of 17 years 11 months, the respondents, on enquiry with regard to payment of pension, claimed that since the services of the petitioner’s husband were confirmed after 01.04.2003 i.e., from 01.09.2005, her husband is not entitled for pension under Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Scheme (for short, ‘Pension Scheme, 1998’); and that he would be covered only by Contributory Pension Scheme which came into effect from 01.04.2003; and thus, they would only pay the entire Provident Fund Contribution available to her husband’s account and accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.5,34,835/- towards the employer contribution and the employee contribution; and that she is not entitled for being granted family pension w.e.f. 01.02.2017 on account of the death of her husband on 30.01.2017, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Pension Scheme, 1998. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.16684 of 2019, dated 07.08.2023.

7. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

8. The first respondent, by the counter-affidavit, contended that the petitioner’s husband was recruited as Conductor on consolidated pay on 21.02.1999; and that his services were confirmed only on 01.09.2005 when he was brought under the timescale; that by G.O.Ms.No.157, dated 27.09.2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu had excluded Tamil State Transport Undertaking from purview of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.09.1998; that the workman and the Transport Corporation had entered into settlement under 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 signed on 13.09.1999; that in pursuance of the settlement, a new pension scheme was framed for the employees of the Transport Corporation.

9. The first respondent further contended that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 15.12.2000, had brought regular employees and pensioner of State Transport Undertaking under Transport Corporation Employees’ Fund Trust (for short, ‘Trust’); that as per Rule 2(i) of the Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (for short, ‘Rules’), a member is defined as a regular employee; that Rule 2(r) defines “Existing Member” as an employee who is a member of employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971; that the claim of the petitioner that in v