AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the condition in Para 7(a) in G.O.Ms. No. 110, Transport
Department, dated 06.06.2002 and to direct 1st Respondent to pay family pension to the Petitioner from 29.08.2002 without prejudice to the
right of getting the family pension under the Employees'' Provident Fund Pension Scheme, 1995.
Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan, Tradesman, St. No. T01037, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.09.1996. Case of Petitioner is that Ananda Krishnan was working as a Fitter in 2nd Respondent-Transport Corporation. Formerly, he was
working in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department and for the services rendered in the Govt. Department, pension was granted by
1st Respondent till his date of death on 29.08.2002, his pension payment order being No. A.550938.
Further case of the Petitioner is that she approached the officers of the Respondents to pay her family pension. The Petitioner was informed that
she was not entitled to get family pension for the reason that she was sanctioned family pension under the Employees'' Provident Fund Pension
Scheme, 1995. Under the said Scheme, a monthly pension of Rs. 529/- was sanctioned by 3rd Respondent to the Petitioner. Grievance of the
Petitioner is that, without justifiable reason, 1st Respondent refused to pay family pension for the reason that she was getting Employees'' Provident
Fund Family Pension of Rs. 529/-, whereas, the Family Pension has to be paid to the Petitioner by 1st Respondent is roughly not less than Rs.
2,000/- every month.
Petitioner challenges Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, Transport Dept., dt 06.06.2002, as per which, those who had come under the
Employees'' Provident Fund Pension Scheme (for short, ''the E.P.F. Pension Scheme'') from 16.11.1995 onwards, are not eligible to get the family
pension. Petitioner challenges Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, Transport Dept., dt. 06.06.2002, on the ground that it is discriminatory.
Mr. C. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that up to his death (29.08.2002), Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan
received Govt. pension and while so, family pension cannot be denied to the Petitioner. It was further argued that careful reading of
G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dt.06.06.2002 and G.O.(Ms). No. 189, Transport (RW1) Department, dt.13.08.2004, would show
that all the family members are eligible to receive the pension. Grievance of the Petitioner is that Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002
deprives certain persons from family pension which is discriminatory and unsustainable.
Countering the arguments, Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Counsel for 2nd Respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that when G.O.Ms.
No. 110, dt.06.06.2002, was passed, Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan who was then alive, had not challenged the same. It was further
submitted that as per Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt 06.06.2002, Petitioner''s husband was not eligible for family pension. The learned
Counsel would further submit that with passing of G.O.(Ms). No. 189, Transport (RW1) Department dt. 13.08.2004 Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No.
110, dated 06.06.2002, was not in anyway altered.
From the submissions of both sides, it is seen that Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan, Tradesman, St. No. T0 1037, retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1996. At the time of retirement of Ananda Krishnan, all the retired employees of the Transport
Corporations were covered under the EPF Pension Scheme, 1995 which came into effect from 16.11.1995. Accordingly, pension was sanctioned
under the EPF Pension Scheme, 1995 by 3rd Respondent, to Petitioner''s husband vide Pension Payment Order No. A 550938. He was also
paid monthly pension till his death 29.08.2002 under the EPF Pension Scheme. It is stated that Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan received the
Provident Fund amount both employee''s share of Rs. 58,157/- and the employer''s share of Rs. 50,788/- and the total amount of Rs. 1,08,945/-,
vide cheque No. 106475 dt.29.06.1996.
Para 6(i) of the G.O.Ms. No. 1028, Transport Department dt.23.09.1985 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu contemplates that since the
optee for permanent absorption in State Transport undertakings will cease to be a Government Servant, the Government liability for Family
Pension will cease. Subsequently, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Dept., dt 06.06.2002 for the sanction of Family
Pension to the families of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Pensioners.
Para 7 of the G.O.Ms. No. 110, Transport Dept., dt.06.06.2002, specifically states that ""this order is not applicable to the following members
7(a)who were absorbed in the State Transport Undertakings and who had come under Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme from
16.11.1995 onwards and are entitled for getting Family Pension under the Employees Provident Fund Act and
(b) Who were absorbed in the State Transport undertakings and who had come under State Transport undertakings Pension Scheme from
01.09.1998 onwards and become eligible for Family Pension under the State Transport undertakings Pension Scheme.
Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002, clearly states that those who were sanctioned family pension under the EPF Pension Scheme
from 16.11.1995 were not entitled for the family pension scheme for erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department pensioners.
Govt. issued G.O.(Ms). No. 189 Transport (RW1) Department, dt.13.08.2004 to extend the benefits of the family pension to the spouses of
all pensioners of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department as per the direction of the High Court order dated 11.02.2004 in W.P.
No. 19585/2003. G.O.(Ms). No. 189, Transport (RW1) Department, dt.13.08.2004 has not altered the conditions laid down in Para 7(a) of
G.O.Ms. No. 110, Transport Department dt.06.06.2002. Pursuant to the order in W.P. No. 19585/2003, G.O.(Ms). No. 189 has only extended
the benefit of family pension granted in G.O.Ms. No. 110 to the spouses of all the pensioners of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport
Department.
As pointed out earlier, Petitioner''s husband Ananda Krishnan was sanctioned monthly pension under the EPF Pension Scheme and paid every
month Rs. 529/- from 01.10.1996 till the date of his death i.e. 29.08.2002. As noted earlier, Ananda Krishnan also received the Provident Fund
amount, both the employee''s share of Rs. 58,157/- and the employer''s share of Rs. 50,788/- and the total amount of Rs. 1,08,945/-, vide cheque
No. 106475, dt.29.06.1996. When Ananda krishnan was receiving Pension under the EPF Pension Scheme, writ petitioner is not entitled for the
Family Pension as per the conditions laid down in Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dt.06.06.2002.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasis upon the orders passed in W.P. No. 21204/1992 (dt.07.03.2001). That order was passed in
the said writ petition prior to G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002 and therefore, that order has no bearing on G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002.
W.P. No. 19585/2003 is nothing but extending the benefit of family pension to the spouses of all the pensioners of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State
Transport Department. G.O.(Ms).No.189, Transport (RW1) Department, dated 13.08.2004 has not in any way altered Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms.
No. 110, dt.06.06.2002. It is pertinent to note that when G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002 was passed, Ananda Krishnan was alive. Ananda
krishnan himself has not challenged Clause 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002. While so, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge para
7(a) of G.O.Ms.No.110, dt.06.06.2002. If the claim of the Petitioner is acceded to, it would open the flood gates of many such claims from
pensioners/spouses of pensioners who were getting pension under the E.P.F. Pension Scheme, which will have serious financial implication upon
the corpus of the Corporation, which cannot be allowed. Para 7(a) of G.O.Ms. No. 110, dt.06.06.2002 does not suffer from any legal infirmity,
nor does it infringe the rights of the Petitioner.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.