1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA WP(MD)No.11659 of 2011 G.Thangavelu :Petitioner -Vs- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Ltd), Bye pass Road, Madurai -10. :Respondent Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 24.3.2010 in TNSTC/Madurai/PF8/2390 of the respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant pension benefit to the petitioner with effect from 30.11.2003 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. For Petitioner:MS. AL.Ganthimathi For Respondent:Mr. T.R. Janarthanam,Addl. Government Pleader ORDER The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the respondent/the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai in and by which, the petitioner was directed to deposit the Employees Contribution Provident Fund with interest from the year 2003. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the intervention of this Court, a direction was given in W.P. NO. 1324 of 2005 dated 22.4.2009 to grant pension as a Driver from the date of his discharge. He has got the right to get pension from the respondent but the difficulty faced by the petitioner is, when he was discharged from the service of the respondent/Transport Corporation, the petitioner has received all the terminal benefits. Subsequently, he was also given re- employment as a Cleaner. After reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner has put in five years of service as a fresh employment and before that, the petitioner has put in 12 years service. Therefore, she pleaded, it is an admitted case that the petitioner has put in 17 years of service and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pension. No doubt this argument appears to be acceptable. But the other side of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 argument is also required to be looked into by the petitioner before coming to this Court seeking a direction to the respondent corporation to pay him the pension on the ground that he has put in 17 years of service. The pension is payable only on the contribution made by the petitioner. Unfortunately, when he discharged from the service as a driver on the ground of colour blindness, he had received all the retirement benefits on 30.11.2003. Therefore, the respondent has informed the petitioner to deposit the Employees Contribution of Provident Fund with interest from the year 2003 and without depositing the Employees Contribution of Provident Fund with interest, the respondent Corporation is not legally liable to pay pension. As the petitioner is not willing to deposit the Employees Contribution of Provident Fund with interest, this Court finds no merits in the Writ Petition. 3.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Ltd), Bye pass Road, Madurai -10. +1CC to M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate. SR.No.35391. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.35488. Ses RP/14.11.2011/2P/4C. W.P.(MD)No 11659 of 2011 12.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/