SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 4898

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top