IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.4466 of 2004 R.Veeraiyan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-I) Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Kumbakonam – 621 001. 2.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, rep. By its Administrator, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order in TNSTC/K.D/Pen.1/2002 dated 11.10.2002 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner monthly pension every month w.e.f. 08.01.01 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, award costs. For Petitioner :Mr.V.Ajay Khose For Respondents :Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi for R1 Mr.R.Singaravelan for R2 ORDER The issue raised in the present writ petition is, whether the petitioner, who has served for 19 years 7 months and 4 days, is entitled to get his service rounded off to 20 years, as any fraction of service above 6 months should have to be taken as one year service or not for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The writ petitioner, R.Veeraiyan, was appointed by the respondents, as a temporary driver by an order dated 18.10.80. Subsequently, by an order dated 18.02.81, he was given appointment as a regular driver on daily wage basis. After completion of 6 years of service, he was designated as Senior Driver and thereafter, designated as Selection Grade Driver on completion of 14 years of service. Whileso, the State owned Transport Corporation agreed to introduce a pension scheme for the transport employees w.e.f. 01.09.98 by way of settlement dated 13.02.99. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules were also framed during the year 2000 and the same were also approved by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.135, Transport (D) Department, dated 15.12.2000, and the said scheme was given effect by implementing with effect from 01.09.98. Since the petitioner is an existing member, as per Rule 2(r) of the above said rules, as per settlement in existence, a workman, who has completed 20 years of service or 15 years of service and completed 50 years of age, is entitled to go on VRS. On the above basis, when the petitioner submitted his application, after attaining the age of 50 years, giving his willingness to go on Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the petitioner's application was accepted by order dated 18.01.01 and he was relieved from service with effect from 08.01.01. Thereafter, he was paid gratuity for 20 years by proceedings dated 18.01.2001. In the above said proceedings, the total eligible service, after excluding the leave on loss of pay, was shown as 19 years 10 months and 21 days. Therefore, the petitioner was informed that he was not entitled for pensionary benefits, as he has put in only 19 years, 7 months and 4 days of service and not 20 years of service as contemplated under Rule 16 (a)(ii) read with 2(p) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules. By the above proceedings, the petitioner, having been denied the benefit of pension, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running short of 3 months of service, so as to complete 20 years of service. In his further submission, it was stated that once the respondents accepts the application of the petitioner to go on VRS and thereafter, relieving the petitioner from service, it is not open to the respondent to turn around and reject the request of the petitioner for pensionary benefits on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service and he has completed only 19 years 7 months and 4 days of service. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2634/2009, dated 20.04.2009. On that basis, prayed for allowing the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Per contra, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner's application was accepted and he was allowed to go on VRS, but, subsequently, the impugned order was passed refusing pensionary benefits, for the simple reason that the petitioner is not entitled to get his fraction of service, treated as one year, since the Rule 13(a) dealing with determination of eligible service can be applied only to those people, who joined the respondent Corporation on or after 01.09.98. On that basis, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent objects for the grant of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner, after completing the required 20 years of service, submitted his application in good faith that the respondents would compute the service of the petitioner in the right perspective and grant pensionary benefits. At the time of submitting his application seeking permission to go on VRS, the petitioner, admittedly, having rendered 20 years of service, the respondents Corporation also accepted the request of the petitioner on the bonafide ground that the petitioner had completed 20 years of service, which is requisite for a person to go on VRS from service of the respondents Corporation. Admittedly, after accepting the request of the petitioner to go on VRS from the service of the respondents, the respondents issued an order relieving the petitioner from the service of the respondent Corporation. Whileso, the respondent Corporation cannot turn around and say that the petitioner had not rendered 20 years of service, for the simple reason that, while computing the service of the petitioner, it was found that he had rendered only 19 years 7 months and 4 days of service. In any event, if the respondent Corporation had communicated to the petitioner that he is 3 months short of completing 20 years of service, naturally, the petitioner would have continued in service for another 3 months to be eligible for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits by putting the requisite number of years of service. But, the respondent Corporation, after accepting the petitioner's application dated 11.08.2000, relieved the petitioner from the service of respondent Corporation with effect from 08.01.01. Therefore, they cannot deny the benefit of pension on the ground that while computing, it is found that the petitioner has put in 19 years 7 months 4 days of service. In any event, the petitioner is running short of less than 5 months of service. As already held by this Court in W.P.No.2634/2009, dated 20.04.2009, if a person is running short of 6 months of service, a fraction of service which is six months or more shall be treated as one year of service. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since the petitioner has retired in the year 2002, i.e., 8 years ago, the respondent Corporation is directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 7. In result, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. rkm To 1.The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-I) Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Kumbakonam – 621 001. 2. The Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 1 cc to Mr.M. Ravi Bharathi, Advocate, Sr. 28587 1 cc to Mr.V. Ajoy Khose, Advocate, SR. 28340 1 cc to Mr.R. Singaravelan, Advocate, Sr. 28040 W.P.No.4466/2004 GV (CO) kk 1/6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/