S. Thiagarajan, N. Veeraperumal and T. Krishnan vs The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Employees Pension Fund Trust and The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

S. Nagamuthu, J.—Since the common issues are involved in all these three Writ Petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed

of by means of this Common Order.

The petitioners in all these three Writ Petitions were workmen in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Limited. All the

three petitioners went on voluntary retirement prior to 01.09.1998. While in service, they were members of the Family Pension Scheme of 1971.

On retiring from service, admittedly, they got the benefit of Family Pension Scheme of 1971.

Subsequently, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 135, Transport (D) Department, dated 15.12.2000 introducing the Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules. According to the said rules, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees''

Pension Fund was established. As per Rule 15, a member of the said fund shall be eligible either for superannuation pension or for voluntary

retirement pension. Though the said Government Order was issued on 15.12.2000, the Rule was given effect to from 01.09.1998. As per Chapter

4 of the said Rules, in respect of the existing members of the Family Pension Scheme of 1971, and who were all in service as on 01.09.1998, the

contribution paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner shall be refunded by the Commissioner to the fund and in the event of either retirement on

attaining the age of superannuation, or on voluntary retirement, such members shall be eligible for monthly pension. In respect of the workmen, who

retired between 01.09.1998 and 15.12.2000, and those who have got the benefit of pension under the Family Pension Scheme of 1971, in the

event of the said employees repaying the said amount to the fund under the Rules, then, they will also be paid either retirement monthly pension or

voluntary retirement monthly pension under the Rules.

Admittedly, the petitioners retired from service on voluntary basis prior to the crucial date i.e., 01.09.1998. However, they made a request to

the respondents to bring them under the said Rules and to pay them voluntary retirement pension. The said request of the petitioners has been

rejected by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward with these Writ Petitions.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the Rules, when it is possible for an employee, who retired between

01.09.1998 and 15.12.2000, to come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Scheme, by

repaying the entire benefit that he had got under the Family Pension Scheme of 1971, the same benefit may be extended to those employees who

retired prior to 01.09.1998, in the event of the said employees repaying the benefits obtained under the old Scheme.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that though the said Government Order is dated 15.12.2000, the Government

thought it fit to give retrospective effect to the said Rules with effect from 01.09.1998. When 01.09.1998 is the crucial cut-off date, it is not within

either the discretion of the petitioners or within the purview of this Court to give retrospective effect to the Rules from any date prior to

01.09.1998.

I have considered the rival submissions. Fixing a cut-off date is a policy decision of the Government. The same is done based on various

requests made and taking into consideration the other relevant factors. It is the well settled law that this Court should not interfere in such policy

decisions of the Government and the power of this Court is so limited. Unless it is stated before this Court that a policy of the Government is

arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, this Court cannot interfere with the same. But in this case, no such argument is advanced by the learned Counsel

for the petitioners assailing the policy decision of the Government in fixing the cut-off date. So, it is not within the power of this Court to give

retrospective operation to any statutory Rule issued by the Government, as, it is only for the Government to decide the issue.

In the case on hand, the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the Rule, more particularly, the cut-off date prescribed by the Government.

Instead, they have only challenged the Orders passed by the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation. So long as the Rule fixing the cut-

off date remains unassailable, the respondents are bound only by the Rule and they cannot pass any order deviating from the Rule. The

respondents, in this case, have rightly followed the Rule and have rejected the claims of the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the

orders passed by the respondents requiring any interference at the hands of this Court.

In the result, all the three Writ Petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are also dismissed. No costs.