BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 23.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD).No.29944 of 2025 K.Vijayakumar, S/o.K.Kumarasamy, No.2, Bagavathiamman Kovil Street, Vadakarai, Periyakulam, Theni District – 625 601. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)

Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Madurai.

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)

Ltd., Dindigul Region, Dindigul.

3.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and calculate his pension with effect from the date of making contribution to the Provident Fund to till the date of Retirement i.e., from 01.01.1986 to 31.05.2015 and treat the said period as pensionable service and consequently direct the respondents to give him all the monetary benefits forthwith including revised pension with arrears along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable from 31.05.2015 to till the date of disbursement.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to revise the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and calculate his pension with effect from the date of making contribution to the Provident Fund to till the date of Retirement i.e., from 01.01.1986 to 31.05.2015 and treat the said period as pensionable service and consequently to direct the respondents to give him all the monetary benefits forthwith including revised pension with arrears along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable from 31.05.2015 to till the date of disbursement.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent Corporation as a Driver in the year 1985 on daily wages and was regularised with effect from 25.12.1986. He would submit that the petitioner was subsequently designated as Senior Driver, Selection Grade Driver and Special Grade Driver and had superannuated from service on 31.05.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that while computing the pensionable service, instead of taking the date on which the petitioner became a member of the Provident Fund, the respondents have computed the pensionable service only from 25.12.1986. He would submit that the petitioner had become a member of the Provident Fund much earlier, at the time of his entry into service, and the pay slip for the month of January 1986 would disclose that the petitioner had subscribed a sum of Rs.33/-, which was deducted from his monthly salary. He would contend that on and from 01.01.1986, the petitioner had become a member of the Provident Fund and therefore, the period from 01.01.1986 should also be counted for calculating the pensionable service, while disbursing the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court passed an order in the case of S.Padmanabha Pillai Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Ltd., made in W.P.(MD).No.742 of 2019, dated 25.01.2019, and had directed the respondents to count the pensionable service from the date on which the petitioner therein started contributing to the Provident Fund. He would submit that in contempt proceedings arising out of the said order, compliance was reported by the respondents and the said writ petition came to be closed. He would further rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.1762 to 1766 of 2025 dated 09.07.2025 (The Administrator Vs. M.Arumughakan) and W.