3. The Director of Treasuries & Accounts Panagal Building v. MTC Ltd., Chennai

Writ Appeals filed against the common order dated 27th Sept., 2006,passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.5856, 6891 and 23181 of 2006.PRAYER IN W.P.No.5856 of 2006: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated27.05.2005 in so far as the applicability of para 5(a) and 5(b) relatingto fixing of cut off date as 01.09.1998 for grant of pension under thesaid G.O.and quash the same in so far as the petitioner's Association isconcerned and direct the respondents to forthwith extend the GovernmentPensionary benefits to the members of the Petitioner's Association whoretired on or after 01.09.1998 in the light of the directions of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1444 and 1445 of 1999 dated29.10.2003 and in the Review Petition Nos.648 and 649 of 2004 dated01.02.2005.PRAYER IN W.P.No.6891 of 2006: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for all the connected and relevant records relating toG.O.Ms.No.42 Transport Department dated 27.05.2005 passed by the firstrespondent and quash the same in so far as paragraph 5(b)of the G.O. isconcerned and direct the first respondent to sanction and pay to thepetitioner, his Government pensionary benefits for the petitioner'sGovernment Service rendered in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State TransportDepartment taking into account the cut-off date fixed as 01.04.1982 andpay his arrears of pension from 01.01.1988 as per the directions of theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 29.10.2003 in CivilAppeals Nos.1444-1445 with 1446-1452 of 1999 and C.A.No.8507 of 2003.PRAYING IN W.P.No.23181 of 2006: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, toquash G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005 issued by the Respondent Governmentafter calling for the records from the Respondent inasmuch as para 5(b) isconcerned, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct therespondent to pay pension to all the employees of State TransportCorporations, who retired after 01.09.1998 for the services rendered bythem in the Transport Department of the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.378,daterd 18.04.1975, read with G.O.Ms.No.1028,dated 23.09.1995, asinterpreted by the Supreme Court in 2003(10) SCC 503 with arrears withpenal interest of 18% per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants: Mr. R.Viduthalai, AG, assisted by Mr. D.Srinivasan, AGPFor Respondents: Mr. D.S.Rajasekaran for R-1 in WA 111/07 Mr. K.Vasudevan for R-2 in WA 111/07 Mr. D.Sadhasivam for R-1 in WA 112/07 Mr. Ravi Bharathi for R-2 in WA 112/07 Ms. R.Vaigai for R-1 in WA 113/07 Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, Spl. G.P. For R-5 in WA No.113/07 Mr. S.Sankaran, Spl. G.P. for RR-3 to 6 in WA 111/07; RR-3 & 4 in WA 112/07 & RR-2 to 4 in WA 113/07COMMON JUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The State Transport was originally under the Transport Department ofthe State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, in the year 1972, the StateGovernment created Transport Corporations for various districts andtransferred the assets and liabilities of the Transport Department to therespective Corporations. The service of the State Government employees,who were in the transport department were also transferred and placedunder the respective Corporations, where they were posted. They wereabsorbed in their respective Corporations.The employees, who were under the State Government and were eligible,were entitled for pension from the State under the rules after theirabsorption in the corporation. A settlement was arrived with thecorporation and separate provision for pension for the corporationemployees were also made. Circulars were issued from time to timeallowing the benefits. As certain benefits were limited to a class ofemployees by prescribing cut-off date, they were challenged and the matterwas finally settled by the decision of the Supreme Court.In the year 2005, the State Government issued G.O. ms. No.42 dated27th May, 2005, in the light of the different decisions of this Court andSupreme Court, but a cut-off date of 1st Sept., 1998 was fixed under clause5 (b). Retired Employees Welfare Associations of different corporationschallenged the cut-off date as was prescribed in the Government Order byfiling different writ petitions in this Court and relief having granted,the State of Tamil Nadu has preferred writ appeals against common judgmentdated 27th Sept., 2006, passed by learned single Judge. They were heardtogether and disposed of by this common judgment.2. As the matter stands settled in view of the earlier decisions ofthis Court and Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss all thefacts, except the relevant ones, as mentioned hereunder :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As stated above, the State Transport was under the control of theTransport Department of the State. In the year 1972, the State Governmentcreated different Transport Corporations for various districts;transferred assets and liabilities of transport department to theconcerned corporations. The service of the State Government employeeswere also placed under those corporations, who were later on absorbed inthe respective corporations.The State Government employees, who were working prior to creation ofthe corporation in the transport department of the State and completed therequisite period of service were eligible for pension under the Tamil NaduPension Rules, 1960. Options were called for from the State Governmentemployees for their absorption in respective corporation, but it took longperiod and the formalities of absorption were completed between the year1975 and 1982. On 18th April, 1975, the State Government, from Finance(FR-II) Department, issued G.O. ms. No.378 relating to terminal benefitssuch as pension, gratuity, PF, for the employees, who were to be absorbedpermanently in all public sector undertakings of the State. In respect ofpension and gratuity, the following provision was made :-"Pension and Gratuity :In addition to pay in the public undertaking, an opteewill be entitled to pension/gratuity earned by him inGovernment service prior to such absorption. If thequalifying service under Government is less than tenyears, gratuity and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity alonewill be payable. They are permitted to draw theirpension/gratuity immediately on absorption in theCorporation."3. As the procedure for absorption started since 1975 and it took longperiod (upto 1982) for completion, no cut-off date of absorption wasprescribed under G.O. Ms. No.378 dated 18th April, 1975. Subsequently, on31st March, 1980, the State Government from Finance (CFC) Department issuedG.O. ms. No.284 dated 31st March, 1980. By the said Government Order, twosignificant changes were made, viz., a) The pension of employees payable by State Government, who gotthemselves absorbed in the State owned Corporations/Boards were ordered tobe calculated at the time of transfer, but it was ordered to be payableonly on retirement of the employee from the public sector corporation.Thereby, payment of pension was suspended during the employment of theemployee under the corporation.b) A cut-off date of absorption of 1st May, 1975 was prescribed forthe first time for calculating the terminal benefits.The option for absorption, which the State Government called for since1975, finally came to an end on 20th June, 1982, which was the last datefor calling for such option. Another G.O. Ms. No.1028 was issued fromTransport Department on 23rd Sept., 1985, giving reference to earlier https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Orders dated 18th April, 1975 and 31st March, 1980 followed byletter of the Finance (Pension) Department dated 5th June, 1985, wherebythe Government re-examined the whole issue and decided that in respect ofabsorption of all erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Departmentemployees in the various transport corporations, their terminal benefitsshould be settled as per G.O. Ms. No.378, Finance Department, dated 18thApril, 1975 with procedural modification set out in the said order.4. A large number of employees were absorbed under differentcorporation much after 1st May, 1975, upto 1982. Though they had completedmore than ten years of service under the State, having absorbed under thecorporation later on, and in view of cut-off date of 1st May, 1975, as theybecame ineligible to get the benefit of pension from the State Government,they challenged the same before this Court. Learned single Judge allowedthe writ petitions declaring the cut-off date of 1st May, 1975 as illegal.Writ appeals were preferred by the State Government against such judgmentreported in 1998 (1) LLN 205 – Govt. of Tamil Nadu – Vs – M.Ananchu Asariand the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by learned single Judgedeclaring the cut-off date of 1st May, 1975, as illegal and dismissed theappeals.The State Government, being not satisfied, moved before Supreme Court.The Supreme Court, vide judgment reported in 2003 (10) SCC 503 –Government of Tamil Nadu – Vs – M.Ananchu Asari, while observed that therewas no merit in the appeal, upheld the judgment of this Court, but madefollowing observation and direction :-"16. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in theseappeals. The judgment of the High Court is upheld.However, the High Court while indicating that the lastdate for submitting the options finally should have beentaken as the basis for fixation of date, gave a directionto the Government to fix the relevant date in the light ofthe observations made in the judgment. The High Courtproceeded on the basis that it was only on 20-6-1982 andthereafter, that the options were called for. We are ofthe view that in view of the long lapse of time and inorder to avoid further delay and the scope for possiblecontroversies, instead of leaving it to the Government tofix a fresh cut-off date as per the directions of the HighCourt, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of theConstitution, we direct that the date 1-4-1982 shall beadopted as the cut-off date in modification of what wasprescribed in GO No. 1028 dated 23-9-1985 and GO No. 250dated 18-11-1996. The reason for selecting the said dateis th at the Commissioner and Secretary to Government,Transport Department by his letter dated 5-1-1982addressed to the Managing Directors of all State transportundertakings requested them to obtain fresh options by 28-2-1982. The memo issued by the Managing Director of KTCLtd. dated 11-1-1982 makes it clear that the last date forexercise of options was fixed as 28-2-1982 in conformitywith the Government’s directive. The respective https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporations were supposed to finalise the optionssometime thereafter. It is reasonable to presume that PTCLtd. and other Corporations would have also adhered to thesame date. The High Court has referred to the note dated20-6-1982 issued by the Managing Director of PTC (Metro)Ltd. But it does not fix the last date for submitting theoptions. It purports to give certain instructions as tothe follow-up action to be taken with reference to theoptions received. Hence, the fixation of the cut-off dateas 1-4-1982 would, in our view, be appropriate. Takinginto account the aforementioned date for the purpose ofassessing the requisite length of service, we direct theappellants to take steps to extend the pensionary benefitsto the eligible employees. Having regard to the conduct ofthe respondents in seeking the remedy long after theoptions were exercised, we consider it just and proper todirect that the respondent employees whoever have retiredshould get the arrears of pension only from 1-1-1988,which date is fixed with reference to the year of filingthe first writ petition, namely, WP No. 7012 of 1988. Thefixation of pension and payment of arrears should be doneaccordingly within a period of four months from today. Theappellants are entitled to adjust the monetary benefitswhich the employees would not have received if they wereto receive the pension."From the aforesaid judgment, it will be evident that in exercise ofpower conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Courtdirected that the date of 1st April, 1982 shall be adopted as cut-off datein modification of what was prescribed in G.O. ms. No.1028 dated 23rdSept., 1985 and G.O. Ms. No.250 dated 18th Nov., 1996. Thus, thepensionary benefit to which the State Government employees were entitledfrom the State Government after their absorption in the corporation stoodfinally settled by aforesaid decision of the Supreme court.5. So far as retiral benefits under the corporation is concerned,there was no specific scheme prescribed earlier. Pursuant to anindustrial dispute, on 13th Feb., 1999, a settlement u/s 12 (3) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, was arrived at between the State TransportCorporation, its employees and the State. As per clause 18, a new pensionscheme was to be formulated for the employees of the State TransportCorporations, including those recruited after 1st Sept., 1998. Pursuant tothe settlement u/s 12 (3), G.O. Ms. No.135 was issued from Transport (D)Department of the State on 15th Dec., 2000, approving the "Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules". Rule 2 (p), whiledefined "actual service", under Rule 2 (p) (i) provision was made inrespect of employees taken over at the time of nationalisation (formationof corporation) in 1972. under clause (ii) of sub-rule (p) to Rule 2,provision was made in respect of erstwhile State Transport Departmentemployees, who were not eligible for pension for the service under theState, but absorbed under the Corporations as evident from the saidprovision and quoted hereunder :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(ii) In respect of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State TransportDepartment Employees, who were not eligible for pensionfor the service rendered in State Transport Department,such service will be counted taking a compassionate viewfor arriving pensionable service, provided they remit backservice gratuity or any benefit in lieu of pensiontogether with interest at 12% compounded annually, toprovide pension and other benefits for TNSTD service. Inrespect of erstwhile TNSTD employees who were eligible forpension for service rendered in TNSTD, such service willnot be counted for arriving pensionable service under thisScheme."6. Rule 9 relates to joining the pension fund, including theemployees, who were transferred/absorbed from Government department. Itwas mentioned that their past service will be counted, provided they remitthe difference between the capitalist value of the pensionary benefitsarrived as per the rules of the Pension Trust and the amount received fromthe former employer. Rule 13 relates to determination of eligibleservice. Clause (a) relates to new entrants entering into service on orafter 1st Sept., 1998 (not concerned in the present case); clause (b)relates to existing members as on 1st Sept., 1998 and clause (c) relates tonon-contributory period, which is not to be counted, as evident from theprovisions and quoted hereunder :-"13. Determination of Eligible ServiceThe eligible service shall be determined as follows :(a) In the case of a "New Entrant" entering into serviceon or after 1.9.1998, the "actual service" shall betreated as eligible service. The total actual serviceshall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction ofservice for six months or more shall be treated as oneyear and the service less than six months shall beignored.(b) In the case of the "existing member" as on 1.9.1998,the aggregate of actual service as indicated para 2 (p)shall be treated as eligible service.(c) If there is any non-contributory period during theservice, it shall not be counted for arriving the actualservice."The determination of pensionable service is prescribed under Rule 14,as quoted hereunder :-"14. Determination of Pensionable Servicea) The pensionable service of the member shall bedetermined with reference to the contributions received orare receivable on his behalf in the Employees' PensionFund, subject to the conditions stated in para 13. Thepensionable service shall be restricted to 30 years forthe purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits.b) If a member is eligible for pension under any otherscheme, pension payable under the scheme shall becalculated as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gross pension shall be calculated notionally includingthe period of pensionable service rendered with theprevious employer. Total eligible service shall berestricted to 30 years. The difference between the grosspension and the amount already received by the individualfor the service rendered with the previous employer or thepension eligible under the scheme which ever is less shallbe the eligible pension under the scheme."7. In view of the aforesaid provision, apart from pension to whicherstwhile State Government employees were entitled from State Governmentunder the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1960, who had completed requisiteyears of service, they also become eligible for pension from thecorporation under the Tamil Nadu State Corporation Employees Pension FundRules, if he has rendered qualifying service.8. As noticed, the Supreme Court decision was rendered on 29th Oct.,2003, (reported in 2003 (10) SCC 503). Having lost before the SupremeCourt, the State Government preferred Review Petition No.648 and 649 of2004 reported in 2005 (2) SCC 332. It appears that the said reviewpetition was preferred in view of the fact that in the meantime asettlement u/s 12 (3) was arrived at between the employees of thecorporation, the corporation and the State pursuant to which the pensionrules for the corporation employees was framed. Supreme Court, by itsjudgment dated 1st Feb., 2005, dismissed the review applications with thefollowing observations :-"3. Certain contentions are raised on the merits,especially, in regard to the conclusion of this Court thatthe process of absorption did not take place in 1975. Weare not inclined to rehear the arguments on merits. If thepetitioners failed to furnish the necessary material evenduring the pendency of appeal in this Court, that is noground to review the judgment. There is also nothing to beclarified insofar as the operative part of the judgment isconcerned. It is not necessary for us to express any viewon the question whether the Transport Corporationemployees who were erstwhile government servants retiringafter 1-1-1988 would be eligible to get the pension inaddition to the salary drawn by them in the Corporation,as per the Rules and GOs applicable to them. It is thecontention of the learned counsel for the respondentemployees that the GOs issued by the Government themselvescontemplated such payment and in fact those who wereparties to the earlier writ petitions were given thatbenefit. This issue cannot legitimately form the subject-matter of either review or clarification. Hence the reviewpetitions are dismissed with the above observations. Timefor implementation of judgment is extended by four monthsfrom today.9. It is just after about few months, the State Government issuedimpugned G.O. Ms. No.42 on 27th May, 2005, from its transport department,taking away the right of those, who were entitled for pension from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Government and Corporation on the ground that they are not eligiblefor second pension as per G.O. Ms. No.1028 dated 23rd Sept., 1985. Suchorder was passed giving reference to Supreme Court order, though, in fact,Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as also the review applications. Therelevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder :-"5. The Government after re-examination of the wholeissue have decided to implement the orders of the SupremeCourt of India, referred in the judgement seventh readabove and accordingly issue the following orders :-The Government fix the cut off date as 1.4.1982 inrespect of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State TransportDepartment employees who had put in less than 10 years ofgovernment service as on their permanent absorption inState Transport Undertakings, only for the limited purposeof assessing the requisite length of service of 10 yearsto earn pension. The eligible erstwhile Tamil Nadu StateTransport Department employees whoever have retired shallget the arrears of pension only from 1.1.1988 which dateis fixed with reference to the year of filing the firstwrit petition. The fixation of pension and payment ofarrears shall be done accordingly as ordered by theHon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the rules andGovernment Orders applicable to them in the followingmanner:-a) The erstwhile Tamil Nadu State TransportDepartment employees who were absorbed in Tamil NaduState Transport Corporations and retired before1.1.1988 or after 1.1.1988 but before 1.9.1998 be paidpension if they had put in the qualifying service of10 years as on 1.4.1982. Period of Daily paidservices, leave on loss of pay and suspension treatedas specific punishment should be excluded whilearriving the net qualifying service.b) As per the clause 2 (p) (ii) & clause 14 (b) ofthe Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation EmployeesPension Fund Rules issued in G.O. Fourth read aboveand with reference to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Pensionrules, the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State TransportDepartment employees who were absorbed in Tamil NaduState Transport Corporations and retired after 1.9.98be paid pension as per the Pension Scheme of the StateTransport Corporations brought into force by thesettlement under section 12 (3) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 and they are not eligible for thesecond pension as per the G.O. third read above." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Learned single Judge noticed the aforesaid fact as also differentworking sheets produced by parties to suggest as to what the actualpension to which one or other employee may be entitled to, if they areprovided pension from two different employers and if one compoundedpension is given from the corporation. Learned single Judge allowed thewrit petitions holding G.O. ms. No.42 dated 27th May, 2005, particularly inrelation to clause 5 (b) as unconstitutional and, thereby, set asideclause 5 (b) with direction to the State Government to pay pension to allthe employees of the State Transport Corporation retired after 1st Sept.,1998 for the service rendered in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Departmentas per G.O. Ms. No.378 dated 18th April, 1975 read with G.O. Ms. No.1028dated 23rd May, 1995 and as held by Supreme Court in its judgment reportedin 2003 (10) SCC 503.11. Learned Advocate General, while placed the relevant facts,submitted that a person is not entitled for two pensions under the rulesand, thereby, allowing one pension from the State Government and anotherpension from the Corporation will go against the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,1960 and in that background, the impugned order G.O. Ms. No.42 dated 27thMay, 2005, particularly clause 5 (b) was issued. The aforesaidsubmission, in fact, has no legs to stand, as Rule 7, as referred to bylearned Advocate General, is not applicable in a situation like thepresent, which reads as follows :-"Limitations on number of pensions.- (1) A Governmentservant shall not earn two pensions in the same service orpost at the same time or by the same continuous service.(2) Except as provided in rule 16, a Government servantwho, having retired on a superannuation pension orretiring pension, is subsequently re-employed, shall notbe entitled to a separate pension or gratuity for theperiod of his re-employment.12. From the discussions as made above, the following facts emerge :-a) The employees, who were in the service of the State in itsTransport Department and, subsequently, absorbed in differentcorporations, their cut-off date of absorption was notionally fixed as 1stApril, 1982, pursuant to Supreme Court decision reported in 2003 (10) SCC503 in modification of what was prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.1028 dated 23rdSept., 1985 and G.O. Ms. No.250 dated 18th Nov., 1996. Therefore, thosewho had completed the requisite period of service and become entitled forpension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, they will get only onepension from the State and not two pensions.b) So far as the eligibility of pension under the Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules is concerned, it isanother pension, which an employee is earning on completion of requisiteperiod under the transport corporation. Such pension rule has been framedby the corporation pursuant to a settlement made u/s 12 (3) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, which is binding on all the parties. Apart fromtransport corporation and its employees, the State Government, being alsoa party to it, the settlement is binding on the State Government. As thepension from the corporation has to be paid by the corporation and not bythe State Government, it cannot be stated to be a second pension drawn by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any employee under the State for the purpose of Rule 7 of the PensionRules, as quoted above.13. If the argument as advanced by the learned Advocate General isaccepted, it will amount to taking away a right of an employee to getpension under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees'Pension Fund Rules framed pursuant to a settlement u/s 12 (3) of theIndustrial Disputes Act. The State Government has no jurisdiction toalter the settlement and being bound by the settlement, learned singleJudge rightly reversed clause 5 (b) of G.O. Ms. No.42 dated 27th May, 2005.14. There is a difference of pension as is paid by the StateGovernment and the pension as is paid by the Transport Corporation. Sofar as the State Government is concerned, its expenditure towards pensionis made from the consolidated fund of the State Government, but so far asthe Transport Corporation is concerned, pension is not paid from theconsolidated fund of the State or from the State Government or any otherlocal authority, but is paid from the funds generated by the corporation.A separate budgetary provision is made by the State Government every yearto meet the expenditure towards payment of pension to the State Governmentpensioners. On the other hand, no such budgetary provision is made byState Government for payment of pension to the employees of the transportcorporation, which is generated from the earning of the employees'contribution of contributory provident fund under the Pension Fund Trustformed for the purpose of the transport corporation. There is adifference between the two types pension, one paid by the State Governmentto its employees, which is not contributory in nature, but so far as thecorporation is concerned, it is dependant upon contribution of theemployee. While the State is bound to pay the pension to the Governmentemployees, it has no liability nor required to give any guarantee to thecorporation to pay pension to employees of the corporation.Thus, it will be evident that the employees, who may earn pension fromthe State Government, if allowed pension by the Corporation for theservice rendered by them in the corporation, it will not amount to earningtwo pension in same service or post at the same time or by way of samecontinuous service and, thereby, not covered under Rule 7 of the TamilNadu Pension Rules.15. For the reason aforesaid, we find no ground made out to interferewith the order passed by learned single Judge and, accordingly, uphold theorder and direction as given by learned single Judge vide common judgmentdated 27th Sept., 2006. There being no merits, all the writ appeals aredismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.GLNSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government (Transports) Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Secretary to Government Finance Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.3. The Director of Treasuries & Accounts Panagal Building, Jennis Road Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.4. Director of Pension Pension Pay Office No.807, V Floor, Anna Salai Chennai 600 006.5. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., No.37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore 43.6. The Managing Director SETC Tamil Nadu Ltd. Thiruvalluvar House, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.7. The Managing Director Management of MTC Ltd. Pallavan House, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.8. The Administrator TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Chennai 600 002.9. The Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government Transport (RW) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.+2 ccs to Mr.D.Sadhasivam, Advocate Sr.No.1737.CU(CO)DCP/22.1 W.A. NOS. 111 TO 113 OF 2007