Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Madurai v. Director of Treasuries & Accounts

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDated :: 09..04..2011Coram::THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNAandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYWrit Appeal (MD)No.381 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 20111. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Madurai.

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai, Nagercoil Division, Rarithottom, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants- Vs - 1. N. Sundaram Nadar, S/o. Nallathampi, 5/120/112-A, Kaazhamutram, Paiakulam Post, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government, (Transport's) Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

The Director of Treasuries & Accounts, Panagal Buildings, Jennis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

The Director of Pension, Pension Pay Office, No.807, V Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. ...RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 31.03.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3517of 2008. Prayer in WP.3517 of 2008:- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 5th respondent pertaining toits order dated 7.3.2007 bearing Letter No.94/Nir 4/TNSTC (M) Nagar/07and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwithextend the Government Pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the dateof retirement from 31.12.1995 (Prayer amended as per order dated20.03.2009 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in WP(MD)No.3517 /2008).For Appellants :: Mr.S.Royce Emmanuel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J.)As against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated31.03.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2008, Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation has preferred this Writ Appeal. 2. Originally, the first respondent herein has filed a writpetition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2008 seeking to quashthe order of the second appellant herein and for a further direction tothe respondents to forthwith extend the Government Pensionary benefits tohim from the date of retirement from 31.12.1995. 3. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated31.03.2011quashed the impugned order of the second appellant herein andallowed the said writ petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for theappellant is that the total years of actual service rendered by the firstrespondent comes to 9 years 9 months and 15 days, which is short of 2months and 15 days for the completed 10 years of service, which is therequirement for grant of pension as per the Pension Rules and therefore, this Writ Appeal has to be allowed.

A perusal of the records would go to show that the firstrespondent was employed as a Driver on daily wages with effect from07.04.1972; his service was regularized on 01.06.1973 and he attained theage of superannuation on 31.12.1995. Originally, the first respondent wasworking in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, thereafter he wasabsorbed in Kattabomman Transport Corporation with effect from01.05.1975.

As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearingfor the appellant that the first respondent has not put up the requiredqualifying service is concerned, it is relevant to extract Rule 43(3) ofthe Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which reads as follows:-"43(3) In calculating the length ofqualifying service, fraction of a year equal to threemonths and above shall be treated a completed one halfyear and reckoned as qualifying service".

Relying on the above said Rule, the learned Single Judgehas allowed the writ petition, stating that the first respondent has putup the required qualifying service. We do not find any infirmity in thesaid order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, this writ appeal is liableto be dismissed.