Madras High Court
The General Manager vs K.Rajendran on 20 June, 2023
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
1. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Bye-Pass Road,
Dindigul-4.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Bye-Pass Road,
Madurai. ... Petitioners
vs.
K.Rajendran ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 of
the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment made in W.A(MD)No.
338 of 2015 dated 22.08.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyaram
For Respondent : Mr.S.Govindan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Review is sought for by the Transport Corporation on the
ground that the attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to
Rule 15(e) of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees
Pension Fund Rules, 1998, which provides for forfeiture of past
services upon resignation. The respondent/writ petitioner who was
appointed as a Tradesman in the Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation, rendered 10 years of service and thereafter resigned to
take up a better employment in the Education Department of the
State. The writ petitioner claimed pension for the services rendered
by him with the Corporation. The only contention that was raised
before the Writ Court was that 10 years services was not completed.
Therefore, the said contention was rejected by the Writ Court and
the Writ Court directed payment of pension. A review petition was
filed which was also dismissed. The said order was challenged in the
appeal and even in the appeal, we do not find any issue relating to
forfeiture of pension. The attention of the Division Bench was drawn
only to Rule 19 of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
Employees Pension Fund Rules which entails, a disabled person, to
pension after completion of 10 years of service.
2. Mr.A.Jeyaram, learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation in this review petition would, however, draw our
attention to Rule 15(e) of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Rules, 1998, to contend that the rules
specifically provide for forfeiture of past services upon resignation.
There is a proviso to the said rule which provides that if the resignee
takes up a pensionable job after resignation, the pensionary benefits
available with the employer will stand transferred to the new
employer's pension fund/EP scheme 1995, as the case may be, and
such benefits shall not be directly paid to the individual. Mr.Jeyaram
would contend that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
the proviso also since he had not taken permission to join the
Education Department.
3. In the light of the above rule position, we are constrained
to allow the review petition. Accordingly, the Review Application is
allowed. No costs. The order of the Division Bench dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
22.08.2017 will stand set aside. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
4. Adverting to the writ appeal, we find that the contention
of Mr.A.Jeyaram, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has
much force in it. The Rule 15(e) of the Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, 1998, reads as follows:-
''Forfeiture of Service on Resignation :
Resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of
past services.
Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of
past service, if it has been submitted to take up with proper
permission, another appointment, under Government
Department/State Public Sector Undertaking/Board. In such
case, the pensionary benefits shall be transferred to the new
employer's pension fund/EP scheme 1995, as the case may
be, and such benefits shall not be directly paid to the
individual.''
5. No doubt, as per the said rule, resignation would entail
forfeiture of past services, however, considering the fact that the
petitioner in the writ petition is 100% blind individual, we are of the
opinion that he should get at least the benefits of that service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
rendered by him in the transport corporation. We, therefore, apply
the proviso and direct the transport corporation to transfer the
pension fund benefits of the writ petitioner available with it to the
new employer namely, the Education Department. The Education
Department will take into account the services rendered by the writ
petitioner in the TNSTC while calculating the pension payable to him
at the time of superannuation.
6. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) & (N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
20.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Bye-Pass Road, Dindigul-4.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
REV.APLC(MD)No.109 of 2018
DATED : 20.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
