Madras High Court
The Management Of Tamil Nadu ... vs Natchammal on 2 March, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD)No.11604 of 2022
1.The Management of Tamil Nadu Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,
(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Tiruchirappalli Region,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Appellants
-vs-
P.Perumal (Died)
1.Natchammal
2.Thiruvasagam
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.P.Vadivel
(Respondents 1 to 4 were substituted for the
deceased sole writ petitioner vide Court order
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
dated 17.07.2019 in W.M.P.(MDNo.13837/2018 in
W.P.(MD)No.3037/2014) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3037 of 2014.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Rahul
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
10.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3037 of
2014, accepting the case of the writ petitioner viz., Perumal (died) that he
is eligible to get pension as he was put in qualifying pensionable service
viz., 9 years and 8 months, which has been rounded off to 10 years as per
Rule 13(a) of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension
Fund Rules, which is given as under:
“13.DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE
The eligible service shall be determined as follows:
(a) In the case of a “New Entrant” entering into service
on or after 01.09.1998, the “actual service” shall be treated as
eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or
more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six
months shall be ignored.”
2. Heard the parties on both sides.
3. Writ Petitioner joined in the service of the Appellants' Corporation
as a driver on daily wages with effect from 11.09.1985 and his service was
confirmed from 01.09.1986. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge
memo dated 22.07.1996 alleging that on 11.05.1996, he had come in a
drunken mood and shouted at the security guard and abused him in filthy
language. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the appellants'
Corporation and not being satisfied with the same, the second appellant
conducted a domestic enquiry and submitted a report on 03.10.1996,
holding that charges were proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated
15.11.1996 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation
of imposing major punishment of dismissal from service on 03.12.1996.
The Writ Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.3/2000 and the
Labour Court in its award dated 31.10.2001, held that the punishment of
dismissal from service was disproportionate and ordered for reinstatement
without backwages and continuity of service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the
first appellant filed a Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9125 of 2003 and the
writ petitioner also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.34599 of 2005,
seeking a direction to pay last drawn wages under Section 17(B) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge directed the
second appellant to comply with the provisions of Section 17(B) by taking
last drawn wages as Rs.3,900/-. Finally, last drawn wages were also paid
and the appellants' Corporation reinstated the writ petitioner in service
with retrospective effect from 31.10.2001 and thereafter, regularized the
service on 01.07.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was also issued with
another charge memo which was finally ended up in imposing a
punishment of stoppage of increment for three months. Thereafter, when
the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2012, he made
an application for payment of pensionary benefits, but the same was
rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner is having only nine years and
eight months as a qualifying service and therefore, he is not entitled to
pension. According to the writ petitioner, as per Rule 13(a) of Chapter VI
of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund
Rules, fraction of service of six months or more has to be treated as one
year and service less than six months shall be ignored. This has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
refused and therefore, the writ petitioner came before this Court and the
learned Single Judge applying the said rule, has allowed the Writ Petition,
as against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants'
Corporation.
5. This Court, in similar circumstances, has dealt with an identical
issue in the case of R.Veeraiyhan Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam and another reported in
2010 Supreme (Mad) 1933, in which one of us, [T.R.ACJ.,] was a party, it
has been held as follows:
“6. The petitioner, after completing the required 20
years of service, submitted his application in good faith that
the respondents would compute the service of the petitioner in
the right perspective and grant pensionary benefits. At the
time of submitting his application seeking permission to go on
VRS, the petitioner, admittedly, having rendered 20 years of
service, the respondents Corporation also accepted the request
of the petitioner on the bonafide ground that the petitioner had
completed 20 years of service, which is requisite for a person
to go on VRS from service of the respondents Corporation.
Admittedly, after accepting the request of the petitioner to go
on VRS from the service of the respondents, the respondents
issued an order relieving the petitioner from the service of the
respondent Corporation. Whileso, the respondent Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
cannot turn around and say that the petitioner had not
rendered 20 years of service, for the simple reason that, while
computing the service of the petitioner, it was found that he
had rendered only 19 years 7 months and 4 days of service.
In any event, if the respondent Corporation had communicated
to the petitioner that he is 3 months short of completing 20
years of service, naturally, the petitioner would have continued
in service for another 3 months to be eligible for the purpose
of getting pensionary benefits by putting the requisite number
of years of service. But, the respondent Corporation, after
accepting the petitioner's application dated 11.08.2000,
relieved the petitioner from the service of respondent
Corporation with effect from 08.01.01. Therefore, they cannot
deny the benefit of pension on the ground that while
computing, it is found that the petitioner has put in 19 years 7
months 4 days of service. In any event, the petitioner is
running short of less than 5 months of service. As already held
by this Court in W.P.No.2634/2009, dated 20.04.2009, if a
person is running short of 6 months of service, a fraction of
service which is six months or more shall be treated as one
year of service. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and the same is quashed. Since the petitioner has
retired in the year 2002, i.e., 8 years ago, the respondent
Corporation is directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible.”
6. In addition to the above, a Division Bench of this Court by order
dated 20.04.2010 in W.A.(MD)No.94 of 2010 [The Managing Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
Vs. N.Jothi and others] has held as follows:
“5.The above calculation of the learned judge is perfectly
in Order. In the Division Bench judgment, it has been
categorically stated that once person became a member of the
provident fund and he has put in 19 years and 7 months and the
actual service as per rule 13(a) of the relevant rules fraction of
service of six months or more has to be treated as one year.
6.Applying the above said ratio since, the 1st respondent
had put in 19 years, 7 months and 18 days of service, the learned
Judge was justified in holding the 1st respondent satisfied the
required qualification of actual service and also the minimum
period of service for the purpose of pension as stipulated in
pension rule 2(O) 16(a)(ii) of the relevant rules.
7. We are not therefore, inclined to interfere with the said
order of the learned judge. The appellant shall pass appropriate
orders for sanction of pension and pay the same under the
scheme within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
7. When the legal position with regard to counting of the qualifying
service is well settled by this Court repeatedly, filing of the present appeal
against the order passed by learned Single Judge is unacceptable.
Therefore, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3037 of 2014, dated
10.01.2022, is confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of
three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Having
become parties to the aforementioned two cases, the appellants ought not
to have passed such rejection order in the case of the writ petitioner and
therefore, we are constrained to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/-. However,
accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that in future, this type of wrong order would not be passed by
the appellants, we are not imposing that cost. Therefore, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[T.R., A.C.J.] [D.K.K., J.]
02.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
T.RAJA, A.C.J.
and
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
ORDER MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1441 of 2022
DATED : 02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
