IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
K.Dhandapani – Appellant
Versus
The Administrator – Respondent
##PAGE1##
WP No. 32968 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 32968 of 2018
and W.M.P.No.38231 of 2018
K.Dhandapani
S/o.Karuppanna Velar,
No.90 SSHM Nagar, Gandhipuram,
Alanyiyam Road, Dharapuram 638 656,
Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Tiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road,
(Kovai Division) Erode 638 001.
3. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road,
(Kovai Division) Erode 638 001.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER – This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records
__________
Page1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:39 pm )
##PAGE2##WP No. 32968 of 2018
relating the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings
Reg.No.2555/PF4/TNSTC/Erode /2018, dated 18/06/2018 and quash the same
and consequently directing the respondents to sanction the monthly pension for
the petitioner under the scheme of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Trust and disburse the same together with interest at
the rate of 12 percent to the petitioner with stipulated times as fix by this Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.S.K.Satish,
Standing Counsel (for R1)
Mr.M.Murali Vinodh,
Standing Counsel (for RR2 & 3)
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.06.2018 issued by
the third respondent, whereby it was held that the petitioner is not eligible for
pension under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension
Fund Scheme.
2. The petitioner, while serving in the respondent Corporation, voluntarily
retired from service on 24.04.1995. The respondents subsequently formulated
the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Fund Scheme,
which came into force in 1998. Since the petitioner had retired voluntarily prior
to the commencement of the said Pension Fund Scheme, his claim for grant of
pension came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition.
__________
Page2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:39 pm )
##PAGE3##WP No. 32968 of 2018
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and perused the entire materials
available on record.
4. The scheme providing for grant of pension to the employees of the
respondent Corporation came into effect from 01.09.1998. The said scheme
provides for grant of pension only to existing employees who were members of
the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, or who were on the regular rolls
of the State Transport Undertakings in accordance with the instructions issued
or authorised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the present case, the
petitioner was not an existing employee on the date of commencement of the
scheme and was also not a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme
at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension
under the scheme, which came into force on 01.09.1998, after his retirement
from service.
5. The petitioner had retired from service in the year 1995, and though the
scheme came into force in the year 1998, the claim for pension was made only
in the year 2017. The impugned communication issued by the third respondent
is in consonance with the provisions of the scheme and does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality.
__________
Page3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:39 pm )
##PAGE4##WP No. 32968 of 2018
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
GSA
6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petiti
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.