Pension eligibility under the pension scheme is determined from the date of joining the scheme, not from employment date; retrospective benefits require proportional contributions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5 ^th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P6, P7, P8, P11 and P14 orders. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to commence the period of enrollment under the 2^nd respondent from 15.04.1974 and grant the retirement benefits accordingly.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he retired from service of the 4^th respondent as a Secretary. While in service he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and dismissed. That resulted in a series of litigations and finally Ext.P4 judgment. Consequently, he was reinstated in service on the basis of resolution taken by the 5^th respondent as per resolution No.5 dated 31.3.2006 and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, wherein he was allowed to continue in service from the date of suspension, i.e., 23.12.1993 forenoon. From that date to 31.01.2003, he was treated as Assistant Secretary and from 01.02.2003 he was promoted and designated as Secretary till his retirement on 31.03.2004. His service from 15.04.1974 to 31.03.2004 was treated as continuous. From 23.12.1993 to 31.03.2004, his arrears of salary, leave surrender benefit, bonus, medical allowance and gratuity disbursed at the time of retirement, which comes to Rs.6,75,000/- were disbursed. Necessary steps were taken to ensure the disbursement of his benefits by treating him as having retired as Secretary on 31.03.2004, with a rider, no further litigation in this regard.

3. In accordance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and as per the agreement entered into between the 5^th respondent and the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has, after hearing the petitioner, fixed the pension from the date 01.07.1977, the date on which the Provident Fund Scheme commenced.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was sanctioned with provisional monthly minimum pension of Rs.4,140/- by Ext.P7. That amount of pension was sanctioned taking into consideration the total length of service as 307 months instead of 359.5 months and thereby his pension has been reduced considerably. Thereafter, on sanctioning regular pension, the final pension amount is fixed at Rs.5,529/- per month from 01.04.2004. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,960/- as monthly pension and thereby occurred a loss of Rs.1,431/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. On considering the said appeal, by Ext.P11, the 2^nd respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a representation before the Minister of the Department as per Ext.P12. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent granted the benefit of higher grade to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 01.02.2003 and requested to the 2^nd respondent to enhance the pension in accordance with the new rate of salary paid to the petitioner. However, that was declined as per Ext.P14 on the ground that the higher grade was sanctioned with retrospective effect and only a nominal amount was paid as contribution. Hence, the payment of huge amount as arrears with retrospective effect would cause an unnecessary financial burden. Therefore, only applications which received within one year from the date of retirement alone will be considered.

5. Thereafter the Society has taken a decision to remit the contribution from 15.4.1977 and had taken sufficient steps to enable the 2^nd respondent to ca