O R D E R

The writ of declaration has been filed to sanction and disburse family pension on the ground that the husband of the writ petitioner is covered under the Old Pension Scheme and not under the New Contribution Pension Scheme.

2. The petitioner states that her husband was working as Driver-

cum-Conductor and he was initially engaged on daily wage basis and his services were regularised from 01.09.2005. Thus, the husband of the writ petitioner was brought under the regular time scale of pay with effect from

01.09.2005 onwards.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner ought to have been considered under the Pension Regulations, which came into effect from 01.09.1998 onwards and consequently, she is eligible for family pension. However, the respondents have treated the husband of the writ petitioner as an employee, regularly appointed in the year 2005, after the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 and proposed to settle the benefits under the New Contributory Pension Scheme.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is eligible for family pension with reference to the Pension Regulations and the decision taken by the respondents to settle the benefits under the New Contributory Pension Scheme is perverse.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that the husband of the writ petitioner became a regular employee of the establishment only with effect from 01.09.2005 and the said date is taken into consideration for the purpose of granting the terminal and pension benefits. Employees regularly appointed after 01.04.2003 are brought under the New Contributory Pension Scheme and accordingly, they are entitled to get benefits under the said scheme. However, the dues admissible under the New Contributory Pension Scheme, which are to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. As far as the claim of the petitioner for family pension under the Pension Regulations came into effect from

01.09.1998 is concerned, the issues are no more res integra.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that in respect of writ petition filed in W.P.No.5872 of 2013 by the Union, this Court passed an interim order dated 18.03.2013, to grant family pension to legal heirs of the deceased employee under 1998 regulations.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the facts are incomparable and the said interim order cannot be a ground to grant the relief in the main writ petition. 8. It is needless to state that the interim orders would be in force till further orders are passed in Court proceedings and if final orders are passed in the writ petition, then the interim order would not confer any right on the parties to claim any relief. Thus, based on the interim orders right conferred in a final order, which is passed after complete adjudication of issues. Interim orders are normally passed by the Courts only on prima facie submissions and therefore, such interim orders need not be followed or considered at the time of passing final orders in the writ petition. This being the scope of interim order, the contentions raised by the petitioner is that pursuant to the interim orders, the family pension is to be granted deserves no merit consideration.

9. This Court has elaborately considered the issues with reference to the provisions of the regulations in W.P.No.10677 of 2015 and the judgment was delivered on 12.09.2022 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:

“Analysis:

20. Considering the arguments as advanced between the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, let us consider the scope and application of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee-s Pension Fund Rules.

21. In the context of the provisions enumerated in the TNSTCEPF Rules, the eligibility of an employee is to be considered to form an opin