By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. As far as W.P. No. 144 of 2017 is concerned, the husband of the petitioner herein, namely, Mr. M. Jayaraman was appointed as a Hammerman on 11.10.1963 in the services of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and his service was also regularised. Subsequently, various Transport Corporations came to be formed and the husband of the petitioner was absorbed in the service of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Limited as a Technical Tradesman, with Staff No. 2934. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 04.03.1992. The petitioner would state that her husband, while he was working, was contributing to the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 till his demise and after his demise, the petitioner has been receiving Rs. 758/- as family pension under the said Scheme, which is a very meagre amount when compared to the present cost of living. It is the submission of the petitioner that her husband had put in 11 years 6 months and 20 days from 11.10.1963 to 01.05.1975 and the erstwhile Transport Department should have paid pension to him as he became eligible to receive pension, as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. However, the pension was not paid till his demise. It is further contended by the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms. No.42 Transport (RW) Department dated 27.05.2005, the cut-off date was fixed as 01.04.1982. Even as per the said date , the husband of the petitioner was entitled to receive pension with effect from 01.01.1988. According to the petitioner, one Loganayaki, spouse of an ex-employee, similarly placed like the petitioner, had filed W.P. No. 35643 of 2007 praying for similar relief and it was rejected by order dated 12.01.2009 and challenging the same, W.A. No. 1246 of 2009 was filed and it was disposed of on 18.08.2010 directing the Government to sanction family pension with certain conditions and challenging the same, the Government filed SLP (Civil Appeal) CC No. 8381 of 2011 and it was dismissed on 13.05.2011. Thereafter, the Government has also complied with the order by issuing G.O.(3D) No.38 Transport (RW1) Department dated 07.09.2011. According to the petitioner, there were very many writ petitions filed praying for similar relief and the orders were also complied with vide G.O. (3D) Nos. 20, 22 and 23 Transport (RW1) Department dated 18.07.2013, 25.07.2013 and 25.07.2013 respectively and therefore, the petitioner prays for similar orders.
3. As far as W.P. No. 145 of 2017 is concerned, the husband of the petitioner herein, namely, Mr.S. Syed Ghouse was appointed as a Conductor on 21.08.1968 in the services of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and his service was also regularised. Subsequently, various Transport Corporations came to be formed and the husband of the petitioner was absorbed in the service of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited (Old Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited) as a Conductor, with Staff No. 5702. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 18.06.1991. The petitioner would state that her husband, while he was working, was contributing to the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 till his demise and after his demise, the petitioner has been receiving Rs. 529/- as family pension under the said Scheme, which is a very meagre amount when compared to the present cost of living. It is the submission of the petitioner that her husband had put in 13 years 7 months and 10 days from 21.08.1968 to 01.04.1982 and the erstwhile Transport Department should have paid pension to him as he became eligible to receive pension, as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. However, the pension was not paid till his demise. It is further contended by the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms. No.42 Transport (RW) Department dated 27.05.2005, the cut-off date was fixed as 01.04.1982. Even as per the said date , the husband of the petitioner was entitled to receive pension with effect from 01.01.1988. According to the petitioner, one Loganayaki, spouse of an ex-employee, similarly placed like the petitioner, had filed W.P. No. 35643 of 2007 praying for similar relief and it was rejected by order dated 12.01.2009 and challenging the same, W.A. No. 1246 of 2009 was filed and it was disposed of on 18.08.2010 directing to sanction family pension and challenging the same, the Government filed SLP (Civil Appeal) CC No. 8381 of 2011 and it was dismissed on 13.05.2011. Thereafter, the Government has complied with the order by issuing G.O. (3D) No.38 Transport (RW1) Department dated 07.09.2011. According to the petitioner, there were very many writ petitions filed praying for similar relief and the orders were also complied with vide G.O. (3D) Nos. 20, 22 and 23 Transport (RW1) Department dated 18.07.2013, 25.07.2013 and 25.07.2013 respectively and therefore, the petitioner prays for similar orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 18.08.2010 in Writ Appeal No. 1246 of 2009 (A. Loganayaki V. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 and 2 others), the order in SLP (Civil Appeal) CC No. 8381 of 2011 dated 13.05.2011, G.O. (3D) 38 Transport (RW1) Department dated 07.09.2011, issued by the 1st respondent as well as the judgment dated 20.09.2011 rendered in W.P. No. 33975 of 2005 (Thoulath Bai V. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 and 2 others) wherein, under similar circumstances, a positive direction was given by quashing the condition laid down in paragraph 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110 Transport Department dated 06.06.2002 and the said orders have also been complied with by issuance of Government Orders and therefore, the learned counsel prays for appropriate orders.
5. This Court heard the submissions of Mr.K. Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.V. Udayakumar, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
6. The petitioners, in this regard, have already submitted representations dated 02.09.2016 & 10.10.2016 respectively. A perusal of the typed set of documents would indicate that so many persons, similarly placed like the petitioners, have been conferred with the said benefit, in the form of G.O.(3D) NO.38 Transport (RW1) Department dated 07.09.2011, G.O.(3D) Nos. 20, 22 & 23 dated 18.03.2013, 25.07.2013 & 25.07.2013 respectively and this Court, taking note of earlier orders, has also passed a common order dated 20.08.2015 in W.P. Nos. 25880 & 25881 of 2015 ( Mrs.C. Munirathinam and another V. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 and 3 others). Therefore, there cannot be any impediment to dispose of the present writ petitions accordingly.
7. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representations of the respective petitioners dated 02.09.2016 & 10.10.2016, in the light of the above cited Government Orders as well as G.O.Ms. No. 189 Transport (RW1) Department dated 13.08.2004 and G.O.Ms.No. 42 Transport (RW) Department dated 27.05.2005, the orders passed by this Court, as stated above and pass orders on the said representations of the petitioners, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the respective petitioners. No costs.
04.01.2017 nv To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd., (Old Name Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corpn. Ltd.) rep. by its Managing Director, Vellore 632 010.
3. The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Regional Office, No.20, Royapettah High Road, Chennai 600 014.
4. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Old Pallavan Transport Corpn. Ltd.) rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.
M. SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
nv W.P. Nos. 144 & 145 of 2017 04.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in