Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J
N.Ethirajulu – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Transport Department – Respondent
W.P. (MD) Nos.24812, 24869 & 24868 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. D. Geetha
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ashok, Mr.K.Sathya Singh, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Employees cannot rescind their options once benefits have been availed, and inconsistent claims for pensions after exercising alternatives are barred.
Headnote:(A) Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners, retired employees of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, sought pension under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules for service prior to absorption in Transport Corporations - Petitioners did not opt out of the pension scheme; however, claims dismissed based on option exercised and benefits availed - Estoppel principles apply in inconsistent claims for pensions and duplicity of benefits is not permissible. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Delay and latches in filing writ petitions - Dismissed on grounds of delay and on merit. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed pension that they believed they were entitled to as they did not opt out of the pension scheme under applicable rules; however, they had availed benefits under a different scheme during their service.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners were not eligible for pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules due to the options exercised during service and acceptance of benefits under the contributory schemes.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are eligible for pension under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules despite having accepted other benefits and not raising any protest prior to retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Employees cannot rescind their option once benefits have been availed against claiming rights under an alternative scheme. Claims for pension after exercising options under contributory schemes barred by estoppel and election principles.
Result: W.P.(MD)Nos.24812, 24869 and 24868 of 2016 stand dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim pension under the madras liberalised pension rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. counterarguments outline prior benefits availed by petitioners. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on estoppel and election principles. (Para 10) |
| 4. final judgment dismissing the writ petitions. (Para 11) |
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
Heard. Since the issue raised in all three writ petitions is identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. These three writ petitions have been filed by retired employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, seeking the benefit of pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules , 1960 for the period of service rendered by them in the Transport Department prior to their absorption in various Transport Corporations.
3. The facts are broadly similar. In W.P.(MD) No. 24812 of 2016, the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in the year 1967. His services were later deputed to the State Transport Corporation, where he continued to serve until his retirement on 30.04.1996. It was only thereafter, at the age of 78 and nearly two decades post-retirement, that the petitioner filed the present writ petition, claiming entitlement to pension as a retired Government servant.
4. In W.P.(MD) No. 24869 of 2016, the petitioner was working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in the year 1968. His services were subsequently deputed to the State Transport Corporation, where he continued until his retirement on 31.07.2005. It was only thereafter, at the age of 69 and after a lapse of 11 years from the date of retirement, that the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking pension as a retired Government servant.
5. In W.P.(MD) No. 24868 of 2016, the petitioner entered service in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in the year 1956. His services were subsequently deputed to the State Transport Corporation, where he continued until his retirement in the year 1989. It was only thereafter, at the age of 83 and after a gap of 27 years from the date of retirement, that the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking pension as a retired Government servant, claiming parity with one Mr. Jesurathinam, who was granted such relief in W.A. No. 3263 of 2002 dated 16.04.2008.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of them exercised any option under G.O.Ms. No. 212, Transport Department, dated 28.03.1974, opting out of the pension scheme, and hence, they ought to be deemed to have continued under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules . Reference is also made to G.O.Ms. No. 378, Finance Department, dated 18.04.1975, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inGovernment of Tamil Nadu v. M. Ananchu Ansari , reported in (2003) 10 SCC 503 , which fixed 01.04.1982 as the uniform cut-off date for reckoning Government pension eligibility.
7. In the W.P(MD)Nos. 24812 & 24869 of 2016 on receiving notice on behalf of the Respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed dated 23.12.2020. In paras 4 and 5, 4 to 6 of the counters respectively, the circumstances under which the Petitioner was not eligible to draw government pension is set out as follows:-
W.P 24812 of 2016 “4. I submit that he has already been sanctioned a sum of Rs.788/- towards OSSR Gratuity for the service rendered by him in erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Department upto 14.09.1975 considering the option given by him vide Government Lr.No.76248/TBC5/87 dated 21.09.1988 and also settled a sum of Rs. 1454/- towards belated payment of interest on OSSR Gratuity and the indl is drawing pension under EPF Scheme 1995.
5. I submit that as per the G.O. Ms. No. 212 Transport Department dated 28.03.1974 Gratuity under OSSR Scheme with double share of Government PF has been settled to the above retired person. Further, he Knowing well about the fact of the settlement, the petitioner has been received OSSR Gratuity and PF both share i.e empl
