The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned Letter No.001/t1/2010, dated 30.04.2010, issued by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to sanction to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by her husband in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department.
2. According to the petitioner, her husband Late.Satyanesan was appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 12.10.1971. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division) Ltd., Madurai and thereafter, he was absorbed therein pursuant to the winding up of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department with effect from 15.09.1975 and he was retired on 15.01.1993.
3. The petitioner's husband, pursuant to the winding up of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, was permanently absorbed in the respondent Transport Corporation and he was entered into an agreement, under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the respondent Corporation and as per the agreement, he was declared as a Government servant. The Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.1028, Transport Department, dated 23.09.1985, had decided to grant terminal benefits to all the erstwhile Government servants permanently absorbed in State Transport Undertakings. As per Rule 43(2) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, one should have completed ten years of net qualifying service in Government as on the date of his permanent absorption in the Transport Corporation to become eligible for pension. Accordingly, employees, who had put in ten years of Government service and above as on 01.05.1975 / 15.09.1975 were sanctioned pension.
4. Aggrieved by the decision taken by the Government, some of the employees, who had put in less than ten years of service, had filed writ petitions before this Court seeking sanction of pension duly reckoning the services rendered by them in the Transport Corporation beyond 01.05.1975 / 15.09.1975 for the purpose of arriving the net qualifying service of ten years to earn pension. Ultimately, it ended before the Supreme Court, which by order, dated 29.10.2003, directed the respondent Corporation to fix the cut-off date as 01.04.1982 for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service. Thereafter, the Government had fixed the cut-off date as 01.04.1982 in respect of the employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department and counted ten yeas of service from the date of their initial appointment. Accordingly, the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport (RW) Department, dated 27.05.2005, ordering that the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees, who were absorbed in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations and retired before 01.01.1983 or after 01.01.1983 but before 01.09.1998 be paid pension if they had put in the qualifying service of ten years as on 01.04.1982. Period of daily paid services, leave on loss of pay and suspension treated as specific punishment should be excluded while arriving the net qualifying service.
5. According to the said Government Order, the employees, who have retired from 01.09.1998 are eligible to pension, if they had put in qualifying service of ten years as on 01.04.1982. Since the petitioner's husband had retired from service on 15.01.1993 i.e., before 01.09.1998, he was also eligible for pension. Therefore, the petitioner's husband sought for information of his net qualifying service from the second respondent under Right to Information Act and the second respondent had furnished the information of the particulars of his net qualifying service, vide letter No.629/eph;/4/j.eh.m.Bgh.f(k)/2007, dated 21.03.2007 as follows:
(Net quality Service) _________________________________
6. According to the second respondent, since the net qualifying service of the petitioner's husband was lesser than ten years i.e., 9 years 10 months and 24 days, he was not eligible for pensionary benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005, and accordingly, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner's husband for pension benefits. Thereafter, after his demise, his wife / petitioner herein sent a representation to the respondents, but the same was also rejected by the second respondent vide impugned letter, dated 30.04.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, the petitioner's husband was eligible to pension. Rule 13(a) of Chapter VI of the TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Rules specifies determination of eligible service, which is extracted as follows:-
?In the case of a ?New Entrant? entering into service on or after 1.9.1998, the ?actual service? shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more than shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.?
8. In view of the above, the period of service rendered by the petitioner's husband shall be rounded off to ten years as his net qualifying service was 9 years 10 months and 24 days and he shall be declared as eligible for pension. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in Indian Bank v. N.Venkatramani, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 609.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials produced.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband was appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 12.10.1971 and he was absorbed in Tamil Nadu State Transport Department pursuant to the winding up of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department with effect from 15.09.1975 and he was retired from service on 15.01.1993 and after deducting the leave on loss of pay, his net qualifying service period was 9 years 10 months and 24 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in N.Venkatramani' case (cited supra) has held that fraction period of service exceeding six months shall be treated as one year and it shall be applicable to VRS also. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the phrase ?beneficial legislation? has held that provision of the regulations, which are beneficial in nature, should be construed liberally.
11. Therefore, in the present case also, the provisions of the respondent Corporation, under Rule 13(a) of Chapter VI of the TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Rules shall be given liberal interpretation and the fraction of service period shall be rounded off to one full year. Accordingly, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also applying the Rule 13(a) of Chapter VI of the TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Rules, the petitioner's husband is declared as eligible for pensionary benefits.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Letter No.001/t1/2010, dated 30.04.2010, issued by the second respondent is set aside and the respondents 1 and 3 are directed to sanction and pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by her husband in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, Chennai-600 009.
2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division) Ltd., Nagercoil.
3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Division Ltd., Tirunelveli..