AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner entered the service as a Driver in the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation on 26.1.1965. Subsequently,
when the public sector corporations were formed, the Petitioner opted to join Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli. For an incident
that took place on 8.3.1978, he was dismissed from the service. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication
before the Principal Labour Court, Madurai.
Such dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 134/87. The Labour Court by its Award dated 9.4.1990 held that the enquiry conducted by the
employer was illegal and the enquiry was held in violation of the principle of natural justice. In spite of an opportunity was given, the Corporation
was not able to justify the Petitioner''s termination, therefore, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuity of service
and full back wages.
The second Respondent/Transport Corporation filed W.P. No. 17593 of 1990 challenging the said Award. While dismissing the Writ Petition
on 08.06.1999 on considering the fact that by then the Petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, the learned Judge modified the award
and gave the following direction:
...in the interest of justice, I hold that the second Respondent who has rendered services to the Corporation would continue to be entitled to the
pensionary benefits and further the amount of Rs. 35,000/-which was already been paid need not be recovered from him. It is further made clear
that the second Respondent is not entitled to claim any other amount on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court and consequently, the
award of the Labour Court is modified to the above extent....
The Petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge and he preferred W.A.386 of 2001. The Writ Appeal also came to be
dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge and in the order dated 22.12.2006, it has been observed as follows:
...But, in view of the changed circumstances that the Appellant had already retired from service and he was paid Rs. 35,000/-as back wages
and he is receiving pension, the learned single Judge modified the order to give pension continuously to the Appellant and not to recover Rs.
35,000/-paid to him towards back wages but he is not entitled to claim any other amount.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned Counsel and after going through the relevant records,
particularly, the impugned order, we are satisfied that the order passed by the learned single Judge is well founded and therefore, we see no reason
to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Therefore, the issue of non-employment came to finality by the order passed by the Division Bench. However, the Petitioner, not satisfied with
the same, has filed the present Writ Petition after sending a representation dated 24.8.2007 seeking for payment of pension claiming that he was
eligible for the said pension. The Writ Petition seeks for such direction.
Notice of motion was ordered in the Writ Petition on 8.8.2008. On notice from this Court, the second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit
dated 25.10.2009. In the Counter Affidavit, it was stated in paragraphs 6 & 8 as follows:
I state that as a welfare measure, the Government extended that a benefit under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules 1960, as well as the benefit
of family pension to all the staff covered under Department vide No. Ms. 212, Transport Department, dated 28.3.1974. But whenever a new
service condition or new service benefits or new retiring benefits is introduced, it is the statutory duty of the Government/Department to make
award the staff about the benefits of the new scheme, and the individuals governed by existing rules should be given chance to opt their willingness
for the new benefit. Accordingly, the staff covered under Tamil Nadu state Transport Department Operational Subordinates Retiring invalid and
Compassionate Gratuities (Non Pensionable Establishment) Rules i.e., O.S.S.R including the Petitioner were informed through Circular, which was
exhibited in the Notice Boards, to exercise the willingness for the new benefits. It had been clearly stated that, ""In case you are agreeable to be
governed by this Liberalised conditions to which you have been made eligible under G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 28.3.1974, you need not take any
action."" It is to the staff who remained quiet would be governed by the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules....
...According to his option, he was retained in the existing terms and conditions of service. Therefore, the Petitioner is eligible for the service
benefits under Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operational Subordinates Retiring invalid and Compassionate Gratuities (Non Pensionable
Establishment) Rules i.e.., O.S.S.R. and not eligible for the benefit under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules i.e., M.L.P.R. 1960. Based on his
option, the Government has settled his gratuity for Rs. 1,325/-to him and this amount has been received by this Petitioner vide Letter No.
8781/RW1/83 dated 19.1.1983. So this Petitioner is not eligible for pension under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules i.e. M.L.P.R.1960.
In proof of his averments, Mr. M. Prakash, learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation produced a copy of the undertaking singed by the
Petitioner declaring that he does not want to govern by G.O. Ms. No. 212/dtd.28.3.1974/Transport and he wants to be governed by the existing
terms and conditions of service. The undertaking containing the signature of the Petitioner reads as follows:
I, T. Krishna Pillai, working as (category) driver S. No. 320 having read the contents of G.O. Ms. No. 212/dt.28.3.1974/Transport hereby
declare that I do not like to be governed by the provisions of this G.O.,. I voluntarily opt to be governed by my existing terms and conditions of
service.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to grant the direction as sought for by the Petitioner. The Writ Petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.