AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—We have heard the submissions made by Mr. R. Janakiramalu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and also
by Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
The respondent herein/writ petitioner had filed W.P. No. 4981 of 2006 praying that a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus be issued to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the Managing Director of the first appellant Transport Corporation in his letter No.
66254/Y6/TNSTC/05, dated 30.12.2005, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for pension and quash the same and also to issue a direction to
the respondents therein to pay the petitioner pension with effect from 01.07.2005 for his service of 25 years from 29.11.1979 to 30.06.2005 with
all arrears of pension and other consequential benefits.
The learned Single Judge, by order dated 31.08.2006, made the following order:
In the light of the above referred Rule 19(c) and from the perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to count the past service
also after retirement that earlier period is served as conductor for the purpose of pension while counting the period in respect of helper also as
rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner whatever the amount received by the petitioner shall be refunded with the interest as per
Rules and thereafter the respondents are bound to sanction the pension. Considering the petitioner''s earlier service, the second respondent is
directed to send a demand instead of requesting the petitioner to pay the employer''s contribution for the period of non-employment with interest as
per rules or adjust it by commutation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner is directed to
remit the sum, if necessary and thereafter, the respondents are directed to sanction the pension benefits to the petitioner from 01.07.2005 and the
entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The above said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged in this writ appeal.
Before dealing with the question involved in this writ appeal, it shall be convenient to notice the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition that
are extracted as under:
(i) On 30.03.1979 the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the then Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited and his service
was regularised with effect from 29.11.1979. Thereafter, he was transferred to various Transport Corporations owned by the State Government
and at last to the first appellant Transport Corporation. While he was thus working as a conductor in the first appellant Transport Corporation, the
respondent/writ petitioner met with an accident while on duty and sustained grievous injuries on his left leg. After the completion of treatment, he
was referred to the Medical Board which found him unfit to continue in the post of conductor and thus he was discharged from service from the
post of conductor with effect from 30.11.1995. By then he had put in 16 years of continuous service. Subsequently, he was given an alternative
employment as a helper on 18.09.1996 and ultimately retired from service on 30.06.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation, and as a helper
he had completed nine years of service.
(ii) Meanwhile the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules came into force on 01.09.1998. After retirement, the
respondent/writ petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director of the first appellant Transport Corporation for sanctioning pension
taking into account his past service as conductor as well as the subsequent service in the alternative employment as helper. The said request was
turned down by the Managing Director of the first appellant Transport Corporation by the impugned order dated 30.12.2005. The following are
the reasons for rejection of the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for pension as stated in the impugned order:
As the respondent/writ petitioner was discharged from service as conductor on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board that he was found
not fit to perform duty as conductor and then appointed as helper as a fresh entrant, his service as a helper alone could be counted for considering
his eligibility to receive monthly pension and since he had not completed the required minimum period of 10 years of service from the date of
appointment as helper till the date of retirement, he was not eligible to receive pension.
Impugning the said order of the Managing Director of the first appellant Transport Corporation dated 30.12.2005, the above said writ petition had
been filed.
Our attention was drawn to the scheme of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules which came into force on
01.09.1998, more particularly Clause 19(c) of the said Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of resolving the dispute in this matter. Rule 19(c)
reads as follows:
In the case of employee who are medically discharged and are not re-employed, they are eligible for benefits under Clause 19(a) above. If they are
re-employed, they are eligible for continuity of membership and the benefits will be allowed only at the time of normal retirement by counting the
past service also.
A reading of the above said provision makes it abundantly clear that an employee discharged on medical ground and later on re-employed, he
shall be eligible for continuity of membership to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules meaning that his
past service before discharge on medical grounds shall also be counted as the eligible period of service for pension. Of course, the respondent/writ
petitioner was discharged from service on medical grounds on 30.11.1995. But he was subsequently given an alternative employment as a helper
on 18.09.1996. By then, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 had come into
force on 07.02.1996. Only subsequent to the date on which the said Act came into force, the appellant was given alternative employment as helper
with effect from 18.09.1996. Obviously in order to implement the mandate provided u/s 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, he was given alternative employment.
The said section mandates that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service
and that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay
scale and service benefits. It has also been provided therein that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a
supernumerary post till a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation.
Obviously, under the above said circumstances, the Transport Corporation had provided alternative employment as a helper after the respondent
was discharged from service as conductor on medical grounds. Apart from the mandate provided in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Rule 19(c) of the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees''
Provident Fund Rules makes it crystal clear that in case of re-employment of an employee after discharge on medical grounds, he shall be eligible
for continuity of membership of the above said pension fund and his past service shall also be counted for calculating pensionable service. But
under Rule 16(f) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules, a member who has already drawn a non-
refundable advance out of the employer''s contribution before the implementation of the scheme, he has to refund such amount with interest at the
rate of 12% compounded annually to the credit of balance available in the Provident Fund Trust for such a member and thereafter only such
member shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits under the scheme. Even the repayment of the non-refundable advance out of the employer''s
contribution from the provident fund has not been made mandatory as it has also been provided in the said Sub Rule that otherwise the pensionary
benefits will be proportionately reduced. For the sake of convenience, Rule 16(f) is extracted here under:
In the case of existing members who have drawn non-refundable advance before the implementation of this Scheme, out of the employer
contribution, shall repay along with interest at the rate of 12% compounded annually for the credit balances available in the Provident Fund Trust
for the members from time to time. Only after such remittance, the member shall be entitled for the pensionary benefits admissible under this
Scheme. Otherwise, the pensionary benefits will be proportionately reduced.
A conjoint reading of Rule 19(c) and 16(f) makes the position obvious that a person medically discharged and then re-employed shall be eligible
for continuity of membership of the pension fund and his past service shall also be counted for determining the eligible period of service for the
period of pension. In case before the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'' Pension Fund Rules was implemented i.e. before
01.09.1998, the employee had drawn non-refundable advance out of the employer''s contribution, that amount with 12% interest per annum
compounded annually shall be either repaid by such employee or shall be adjusted from the pension payable to him by proportionately reducing the
pensionary benefit. The said provisions were properly analysed by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent herein
shall be entitled to get pension for the entire period of his service, firstly as conductor and then as helper after having been medically discharged as
he was found not fit to continue in the post of conductor.
In that view of the matter, for all the reasons stated above, we are unable to find any infirmity or defect in the order of the learned Single Judge.
There is no scope for interference and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed as the same is devoid of merit.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P. No. 3 of 2007 is also dismissed.