Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu Government Transport ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 28 November, 2025

Author:
G.R. Swaminathan

Bench:
G.R. Swaminathan

W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 29.08.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 & W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015
and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.1027 and 7079 of 2023 and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16072 and 16073 of 2017

W.A.(MD).No.82 of 2023

1. Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporations
Retired Staff Federation,
Rep. by its Joint General,
Secretary,
S. Sampath S/o D. Srinivasan,
No.192, Transport Nagar, PTC Post,
Madurai - 625022.

2. T. Thirumalaisamy ... Appellants/ Third Parties

Vs.

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations
Retired and Pensioners Welfare Association,
No.260B, Dheeran Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli - 9 (Registered No.86/2007)
Rep. by its President,
T. Sivaprakasam S/o. K. Dharmalingam,
No.84, Lilly Street, Cholan Nagar,
Ramji Nagar Post, Trichy-9.

Page 1 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

2. K. Maruthamuthu

3. S. Jeyachandran

4. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

5. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Financial Secretary,
Department of Finance, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600009.

6. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Transports, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600009.

7. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2. ... Respondents/ Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14173 of 2015 dated 15.12.2020.

W.A.(MD).No.888 of 2023

1. The State Transport and Transport Corporations
Retired Employees Welfare Association,
Rep. by its Deputy General Secretary,
R. Devaraj S/o V. Ramasamy,
No.834, 3rd Floor, Raheja Complex,
Annasalai, Chennai - 600002.

Page 2 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

2. R. Devaraj

3. P. Selvaraj ... Appellants/ Third Parties
Vs.

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations
Retired and Pensioners Welfare Association,
No.260B, Dheeran Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli - 9 (Registered No.86/2007)
Rep. by its President,
T. Sivaprakasam S/o. K. Dharmalingam,
No.84, Lilly Street, Cholan Nagar,
Ramji Nagar Post, Trichy-9.

2. K. Maruthamuthu

3. S. Jeyachandran

4. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

5. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Financial Secretary,
Department of Finance, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600009.

6. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Transports, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600009.

7. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2. ... Respondents/ Respondents

Page 3 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14173 of 2015 dated 15.12.2020.

W.P.(MD).No.20568 of 2015

1. The State Transport and Transport Corporations
Retired Employees Welfare Association,
Rep. by its President,
No.2, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai - 2.

2. S. Aadiarajan
3. S. Krishnan
4. R. Devaraj
5. K.V. Gurusamy
6. P. Selvaraj
7. S. Arumugam
8. M. Karuppaiah ... Petitioners
Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department and Chairman
of All State Transport Undertakings,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9

2. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations,
Employees Pension Trust,
State Express Transport Corporation Complex,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 10.

Page 4 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Tirunelveli.

5. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

6. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Villupuram.

7. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

8. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Salem.

9. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2.

10. State Express Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2.

11. State Transport Corporation (CITU) Retired
Employees Welfare Union,
Represented by its General Secretary,
R. Vasudevan S/o. C. Ramamoorthy,
VOC, 2nd Street, Arul Nagar, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai - 625 016.

12. Gunasekaran
13. Gandhi
14. Natrajan
15. Chandirasekaran
(R11 to R15 are impleaded vide Court order dated 11.07.2025
in WMP.(MD).No.13522/25 in WP(MD).No.20568/15 by
GRSJ and KRSJ)

Page 5 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

16. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Federation (CITU),
Retired Employees Welfare Union,
Represented by its General Secretary,
Mr. Arumuganainar, S/o. Kandasamy,
No.52, Cooks Road, Otteri, Chennai - 600 012. ... Respondents
(R16 is impleaded vide Court order dated 29.07.2025
in WMP.(MD).No.15782/25 and the same is amended vide
Court order dated 25.08.2025 in WMP(MD) No.17224/25
in WP(MD).No.20568/15 by GRSJ and KRSJ)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226
of the Constitution of India to
issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Resolution No.50 of the second
respondent Pension Fund Trust dated 14.02.2011 and consequential order passed
by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.53 Transport (E) Department dated
07.04.2015 in so far as it is restricting the revision of pension at 15% with effect
from 01.04.2015 and not giving the increase in pension to the pensioners of Tamil
Nadu State Transport Undertakings who are covered under settlement under
Section 12(3) of the I.D.ACT, 1947, as fixed in Clause 11(3) of the settlement
dated 22.01.2011 and consequently to direct the respondents to revise sanction
and to pay pension to all the retired employees of the respondents 2 to 10
including the petitioners 2 to 8 who were covered under Section 12(3) of the
industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
prior to their retirement, as agreed to under clause
11(3) of settlement entered under
Section 12(3)
of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 dated 22.01.2011 with an increase at the rate of 9% from 2005, increase at
the rate of 12% from 2007 and with an increase in accordance with pay revision
given under settlement dated 22.01.2011 with effect from 01.09.2010, together
with arrears and interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum.

Page 6 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

W.P.(MD).No.20856 of 2015

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations
Retired Staff Federation,
Rep. by its The General Secretary,
288, Transport Nagar,
Postal Training Centre Post,
Madurai - 22.

2. T. Thirumalaisamy
3. R. Renganathan
4. M. Muthirulappan ... Petitioners
Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department and Chairman
of All State Transport Undertakings,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 6.

2. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations,
Employees Pension Trust,
State Express Transport Corporation Complex,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 10.

4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Tirunelveli.

5. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

Page 7 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

6. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Villupuram.

7. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

8. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Salem.

9. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2.

10. State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226
of the Constitution of India to
issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Resolution No.50 of the second
respondent Pension Fund Trust dated 14.02.2011 and consequential order passed
by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.53 Transport (E) Department dated
07.04.2015 in so far as it is restricting the revision of pension at 15% with effect
from 01.04.2015 and not giving the increase in pension to the pensioners of Tamil
Nadu State Transport Undertakings who are covered under settlement under

Section 12(3)
of the I.D.ACT, 1947, as fixed in Clause 11(3) of the settlement
dated 22.01.2011, and consequently to direct the respondents to revise sanction
and to pay pension to all the retired employees of the respondents 2 to 10
including the petitioners 2 to 4 who were covered under
Section 12(3)
of the

Page 8 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
prior to their retirement, as agreed to under clause
11(3) of settlement entered under
Section 12(3)
of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 dated 22.01.2011 with an increase at the rate of 9% from 2005, increase at
the rate of 12% from 2007 and with an increase in accordance with pay revision
given under settlement dated 22.01.2011 with effect from 01.09.2010, and further
hike in pension based on the pay revision granted in the subsequent settlement
with increase in dearness allowance on par with employees in service together
with arrears and interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum.

W.A.(MD).No.82 of 2023

For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Khose
For Mr. A. Rahul

For RR1 and 2 : No Appearance

For R3 : M/s. T. Banumathy

For RR4 to R6 : Mr. N.Satheeshkumar, Additional Government Pleader

For R7 : Mr. J. Ravindran, (AAG)
Assisted by Mr. S.C. Herold Singh

W.A.(MD).No.888 of 2023

For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Khose
For Mr. A. Rahul

For RR1 and 3 : No Appearance

For RR4 to R6 : Mr. N.Satheeshkumar, Additional Government Pleader

For R7 : Mr. J. Ravindran, (AAG)
Assisted by Mr. S.C. Herold Singh

Page 9 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

W.P.(MD).No.20568 of 2015

For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Khose
For Mr. A. Rahul
For RR 1 and 10 : Mr. N. Satheeshkumar, (AGP)
For R2 : Mr. P. Balasubramanian
For R3 : Mr. A.P. Muthupandian
For R4 : Mr. K. Sathiya Singh
For R5 : Mr. K. Jagadees Balan
For RR 6, 7 and 9 : Mr. D. Sivaraman
For R8 : Mr. K. Ramaiah
For RR 11 to 16 : Mr. G. Karthik
For M/s. Lajapathi Roy and Associates

W.P.(MD).No.20856 of 2015

For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Khose
For Mr. A. Rahul
For R1 : Mr. N. Satheeshkumar, (AGP)
For R2 : Mr. J. Ravindran, (AAG)
Assisted by Mr. S.C. Herold Singh
For R3 : Mr. A.P. Muthupandian
For RR 4, 6 &10 : Mr. K. Sathiya Singh
For R5 : Mr. K. Jagadees Balan
For RR 7 and 9 : Mr. D. Sivaraman
For R8 : Mr. K. Ramaiah

*******
COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.)

These intra Court appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation Retired Staff Federation, third party to the writ petition, after

Page 10 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

obtaining leave of this Court against the order dated 15.12.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.

14173 of 2015.

1.1 The relief sought for by the writ petitioners in the present writ

petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015 is to quash the impugned

resolution No.50 of the Pension Fund Trust dated 14.02.2011 and the order

passed in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 07.04.2015 and clause 37(a) of the 12(3)

Settlement dated 13.04.2015 and to direct the respondents to grant revised

pension.

2. Originally, the first respondent namely Retired and Pensioners

Welfare Association of the TNSTC filed a writ petition to quash the G.O.(Ms).No.

63 dated 07.04.2012 to the extent denying the revision of pension @ 9% from

2005, @ 12% from 2007 and 15% from 2011 over and above already given.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in W.P.

(MD).No.14173 of 2015, vide order dated 15.12.2020 on the ground that, the

claim made by the writ petitioners based on settlement U/s 12(3) of
Industrial

Disputes Act
and if any dispute arise in this regard, they shall approach the

Page 11 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

Labour Court by raising dispute and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed

after observing that the writ petitioners are at liberty to approach the Labour

Court for the course of redressal of their grievances.

4. The Retired Employees Welfare Association/ 3rd parties have

challenged the order passed in writ petitions and also filed a separate writ

petitions stating that, there is no alternative remedy available to the appellants

herein, since they are no longer workmen under the Corporation and they are

already retired and the association itself comprises only of retired persons, hence

they could not initiate any proceedings before the Labour Court, including issue

raised herein, i.e., enhanced pension payable by the Corporation to the retired

employees.

Submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners:

5. Third party appellants and writ petitioner (petitioners hereinafter)

submitted that, as per the clause 11(3) and 11(6) of the settlement entered
u/s

12(3)
of the Industrial Dispute Act (u/s 12(3) Settlement hereinafter) dated

22.01.2011 (2011 settlement hereinafter), they are entitled to get revision of

pension @ 9% from 2005, @ 12% from 2007 and 15% from 2011 over and above

Page 12 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

the amount already given. Originally, the prayer was made seeking revision of

pension as per the above 12(3) settlement. There is yet another settlement entered

between the trade unions recorded under
Section 12(3)
of ID Act dated

13.04.2015 (2015 settlement hereinafter), wherein the parties have agreed to

revise the pension only @ 15%. Hence separate writ petitions have been filed by

some more pensioners, challenging the provision of fixing the revision of pension

@ 15%. It is alleged that, from the year 2010 onwards, the revision of pension

will be based on DA merged with the basic pay, hence it comes up to around 49%

of the revision. However, the Pension Trust has granted only 15% revision over

and above already given, which is against the 2011 settlement.

6. The petitioners further allege that, one set of retired employees of

Transport Corporations i.e., Managerial Staffs are entitled for 40% of pension

revision, but the pension revised only @ 15% that to only to the workmen

employees retired prior to 01.09.2010 with monetary benefits from 01.04.2015

and this is violation of
Article 14
and
of Constitution of India and these reliefs

are sought based on the admitted facts, which does not require adducing any

evidence, hence the writ petitions are maintainable.

Page 13 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

Submissions made on behalf of the Pension Trust and State Government:

7. The respondents/ Government and Pension Trust Board submitted

that there is no provisions in the pension rules for enabling the pensioners for

seeking revision of pension. The Pension Trust is already facing financial crisis,

hence further increase of pension would adversely affect the interest of the

pensioners, who are already receiving the pension. As per 2011 settlement, it was

proposed to revise the pension and referred the matter to Pension Trust.

Accordingly, the Pension Trust discussed the subject and decided to revise the

pension @ 15%. In subsequent settlement dated 13.04.2015, i.e., 2015 settlement

also, the decision taken by the Pension Trust board to grant 15% revision of

pension was accepted by the Associations and Trade Unions, hence the appellants

are not entitled to claim more than what was agreed in the 12(3) settlement dated

13.04.2015. They further stated that points based Variable Dearness Allowance in

the pension as on 13.09.2007 is already merged with the Basic Pay and pension

was paid with effect from 01.10.2007 and it has been continuously increased from

01.10.2007, hence there is no discrimination as alleged by the petitioners herein.

They further submitted that comparison made with the managerial retired

employees is misconceived since they form different class and they have paid

Page 14 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

revised pension based on their contribution and also based on revision made on

par with Government employees.

Reply of the Petitioners:

8. In reply to the submissions made on the side of the Pension Trust

Board and the Government, petitioners submitted that, at the time of constituting

Pension Trust fund, it was clarified by the Government of Tamil Nadu that the

pension benefits will be increased as and when there is increase in the State

Government employees. Similarly, it was intimated that there will be a provision

for the proposed scheme for periodic increase of the pension scheme, hence the

Government or Pension Trust cannot contend that there is no provision for

revision of pension. They further submitted that whenever the pay of the State

Government employees were revised on the basis of the Pay Commission

recommendations, the same is made applicable to the various other employees of

the statutory bodies including the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, even in the

absence of any provisions in the Pension rules. As per G.O.(Ms).No.65 dated

21.05.2009, the Pension Trust started revising the pension by merging the

variable DA with effect from 01.10.2010 and the said revision shall be followed

for continuous revision of pay. Similarly, the Pension Trust had passed a

Page 15 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

resolution dated 14.02.2011 to give pension revision to the retired staff as per the

12(3) settlement @ 15% to the basic pensions drawn on 01.09.2010, accordingly

they had approached from the Government for grant approval for the same.

Having accepted and taken steps to get the approval from the Government, the

Trust could not revisit it again and modify the rate. The petitioners also rely on

the revision of pension made to the managerial staff pensioners, and to contend

that the Government is estopped from contending that, there is no provision in the

pension rules for revision of pension.

Discussions and Conclusions:

9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused

the materials available on record:

10. Pursuant to the settlement entered between the Trade Unions and the

Management of Transport Corporations under
Section 12(3)
of the Industrial

Disputes Act, separate Pension Fund namely Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation Pension Fund was constituted and consequently, Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation Employees fund rules (Rules hereinafter) were framed and

came into operation from 01.09.1998.

Page 16 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

11. For better appreciation, crux and some of the relevant features of

Rules are given below:

“Rule 2(1) defines that the members, who are eligible to avail
pension under the rules. The pension rules has not made any
difference between the managerial staff and the employees of the
State Transport Corporation. The Trust Fund shall be administered
by the Board of Trustees prescribed under Rule 3(a) and its functions
and powers are also contemplated. The rules further provides
eligible pensioner's benefits for determination of the pensioner's
service, salaries, family pension, commutation etc. Rule 12 further
declares that the determination of eligible service, pensionable salary
and other connected issues are subject to interpretation of the rules
by the Government. Rule 20(A) deals with providing eligible
Dearness Allowance payable at the rate that may be determined by
the Government of Tamil Nadu and further constitution of the pension
fund and framing of rules. It was implemented from the appointed
date of 01.09.1998.”

12. The writ petitioners herein claim that they are workmen category

pensioners and they are entitled for revision of pension as per the wage settlement

under
Section 12(3)
of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 22.01.2011 (i.e.,) under

2011 settlement. As per clause 11(3) and 11(6) of the 2011 settlement, the

proposed revision of pension is also agreed between the parties and the revision

shall be @ 9% from 2005, @ 12% from 2007 and from the year 2010 @ revision

of pay and Dearness Allowance fixed to the serving employees, the pay revision

Page 17 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

under settlement dated 22.01.2011 came into effect from 01.09.2010 and the

proposal shall be placed before the Pension Trust Board and approval shall be

obtained form the Pension Trust Board. This clause was considered by the Trust

Board and it had made a decision to award 15% of increase in the pension

payable to the retired employees and referred the matter to the Government for

approval. Accordingly, the Government had considered and passed a

Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.53 dated 07.04.2015 by increasing the

pension by 15% with effect from 01.04.2015.

13. It is also admitted fact that in the year 2009 itself, the Dearness

Allowance of workmen pensioners. which was paid by following Variable

Dearness Allowance, was merged with basic pay, vide G.O.(Ms.) No.65 dated

21.05.2009 and thereby is was further ordered that, further increase of Dearness

Allowance will be paid by way of percentage method revision. It is also admitted

that this merger of Dearness Allowance was not granted to the managerial retired

staff. Further, the managerial staff were awarded revision of pay and pension

after the Government has taken policy decision to implement the 6th Pay

Commission recommendations, which was constituted for fixing the wage and

revision of pension for the Government employees of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly,

Page 18 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

a separate pension revision of 40% with effect from 01.01.2006 was paid to the

managerial staff and this expenditure was met out by Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust without any financial assistance from

the Government.

14. Subsequent to the proposed revision of pension based on the 2011

settlement, there are further wage settlements entered in the years 2015 and 2018.

By subsequent settlement dated 13.04.2015, it was agreed that the workmen who

retired prior to 01.09.2010 are entitled to 15% of the enhanced pension from

01.04.2015, thereby, the G.O.(Ms.) No.53 dated 07.04.2015 passed by the

Government was accepted by the parties to the settlement. Though the retired

workmen have demanded revision of pension based on the 2011 settlement, in the

subsequent settlement, they have accepted enhancement of 15% in the revision of

pension from 01.04.2015.

15. As contended in the earlier paragraph, what was agreed in the 2011

settlement is only a proposal to revision the pension, i.e., with increase @ 9%

from the year 2005, increase @ 12% from the year 2007 and the revision under

settlement dated 22.01.2011 with effect from 01.09.2010, was not concluded and

Page 19 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

it was subject to the decision taken by the Pension Trust. Subsequently, the

decision was taken by the Pension Trust and concluded with issuance of G.O.

(Ms.) No.53 dated 07.04.2015 and in the next settlement i.e., the settlement

entered in the year 2015, the Trade Unions have accepted the same.

16. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the petitioners

herein could not rely on the settlement entered in the year 2011 for the purpose of

revision of pension. However, separate writ petitions were filed before this

Court, challenging the 2015 settlement, contending that the subsequent settlement

entered in the year 2015 and in clause 37 are violative of
Article 14
and
of

Constitution of India, since it is discriminatory, as against the workmen

pensioners.

17. According to the writ petitioners, the pensioners of the managerial

staff of the Transport Corporation have been granted 40% of enhancement in their

pension as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, whereas the writ

petitioners, who belongs to workmen category of the very same Transport

Corporation are granted only with 15% enhancement in pension with effect from

01.04.2015.

Page 20 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, admittedly both

categories are receiving pension only from the very same Pension Fund, hence

both managerial staff and workmen groups forms one of the Homogeneous group

and there cannot be any classification among them. Whereas the Government has

decided to increase the pension to the extent of 40% only to one set of group,

who were the retired staff of the Management. The Government ought to have

granted the very same percentage of the revision to workmen category also. The

writ petitioners herein have relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in
D.S.

Nakara and Others vs. Union of India
[(1983) 1 SCC 305], Kallakurichi Taluk

Retired Officials Association, Tamil nadu and
Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu

[(
2013) 2 SCC 772] and All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of

Manipur and others
[(2020) 14 SCC 625].

19. The learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the

classification between the two groups made herein was not based on any rational

principle, however if any rational principle followed, further it has not been done

to achieve the objects. In this case, the object to be achieved is to revise the

pension due to the escalation cost of living and to meet the financial needs of

pensioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsels that the division made

Page 21 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

herein is arbitrary, it runs counter to the whole gamut of the pension scheme,

more particularly the revision of pension, hence prays to set aside the G.O.(Ms.)

No.53 dated 07.04.2015 and also the clause 37 of the wage settlement dated

13.04.2015.

20. Learned counsel for the Government and Pension Trust submitted

that the arguments made by the petitioners that, both managerial retired staff and

the retired workmen categories form one class is misconceived and admittedly,

the managerial staff are receiving pay on par with the State Government

employees and their pay is fixed based on the recommendations of the Pay

Commission constituted by the State Government and not covered under any

wage settlement. Similarly, there is no provisions under the pension rules to

make revision of pension and it is a policy decision of the Government to extend

the benefit of pay revision to the workmen category.

21. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State Government

that when ever there was a wage settlement to the workers reached, consequently,

the pension benefits are also regulated, accordingly. Though there was no

separate revision of pension for the pensioners, under
Section 12(3)
settlement, at

Page 22 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

the time of exit from their service, the Dearness Allowance would be paid as

Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA hereinafter) covered under
Section 12(3)

settlement. Further in respect of managerial staff, rate of Dearness Allowances is

being paid on par with Government employees. Similarly, the managerial staff

constitute only 1% of cadre strength and remaining 99% are the workmen

category. Since this managerial staff constitute separate category and class, they

cannot be equated with the workmen category. The managerial staff were carrying

higher responsibilities, while they were in service and accordingly, they were also

made higher contribution for pension than the workmen categories.

22. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that taking note

of the fact that there was no revision of pension to the workmen category, by

issuing G.O.(Ms.) No.65 dated 21.05.2009, the Government has taken the policy

decision to merge the V.D.A with the pension received by the employees and

accordingly, it was made as basic pension. Further, it was decided to pay the

Dearness Allowance based on the percentage method with effect from

01.10.2007, which resulted in revision of pension to the workmen category. He

further submitted, since classification made herein is reasonable classification and

workmen category cannot be equated with the managerial staff category,

Page 23 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

managerial staff are being paid pension and entitled to Dearness Allowance on

par with the State Government servants. Whenever the Government revises the

same, it is made applicable to the managerial staff category, hence submitted that

the contention of the petitioner that there is a discrimination is not proper.

23. The learned counsel of State further submitted that the petitioners at

the time of filing the writ petitions, they relied on the 2011 settlement for seeking

revision, now the very same petitioners have come with a claim that the

subsequent settlement, which accepts the Government proposal to revise the

pension in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.53 and challenging the 2015 settlement only

shows that the petitioners are approbate and reprobate and they are not entitled to

challenge the clause 37 of the 2015 settlement. It is also brought to the

knowledge of this Court that, another settlement in the year 2018 is also rendered

and the Trade Unions till now had not challenged the revision of pension ordered

by Government.

24. The learned counsel for State further submitted that since

managerial staff are constituted to 1% of the Pension Trust and already the

Pension Trust is facing high financial difficulties and already requested the

Page 24 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

Government to rescue the Trust Fund by making contribution. To buttress his

arguments, the learned counsel also relied on the letter dated 05.08.2018 sent by

the Pension Trust to the Government regarding the financial position of the

Pension Trust as on 31.03.2013. Further, another letter dated 11.09.2018

addressed to the Government was relied on to state that there are subsequent

settlement and 7th Pay Commission implementations are pending. It is also stated

in the 2013 wage statement, the Government has come forward to compensate the

short fall of the Trust Fund and only Rs.33 lakhs is available with the Trust Fund

at that point of time. Hence the Pension Trust and Government had considered

the financial constraints while revising the pension to the workmen category,

therefore prays to dismiss these writ appeals and writ petitions.

25. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in
D.S. Nakara vs. Union of

India
[1983 1 SCC 305] cited supra has elaborately reiterated the principle to be

followed while revision of pension and observed in paragraph Nos.31, 42 and 65

as follows:

“31. From the discussion three things emerge : (i) that
pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the
sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to
1972 rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted
in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to
Art.309
and clause

Page 25 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

(5) of
Art.148
of the Constitution ; (ii) that the pension is not an ex-
gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered ; and

(iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to
those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the
employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left
in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a
certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn
during last three years of service reduced to ten months under
liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an
additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to
requirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and
that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.

....

42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the
pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its
upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by
arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of
revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational
principle ? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on
some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to
the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects
underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary
to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind
it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to
that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior
to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for
augmenting social security in old age to government servants then
those who retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire
later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two
classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational
principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving
something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be
discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day
prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were
in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and
both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a
fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will
permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension ? One

Page 26 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100 p
a. and average emolument to be worked out on 36 months' salary
while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000 p.a. and average
emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months average.
The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle
and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the
objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In
fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised
pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the
whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in

Art.14
is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being
statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules accord
differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of
commutation of pension. A 48 hours difference in matter of retirement
would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and
unprincipled. Therefore the classification does not stand the test of

Art.14.

....

65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding
horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare
State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact
that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively
low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the
falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are
satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: 'being in
service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible
for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a
homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any
discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated
to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension
and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are
of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being
in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in
impugned memoranda....”

Page 27 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

26. With regard to maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the

retired employees for revision of pension, the Apex Court in
D.S. Nakara
case

cited supra has held in paragraph No.64 hereunder, hence it is argued that the

same is applicable to the writ petitioners herein.

“64. Locus standi of 3rd petitioner was questioned. Petitioner
3 is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act
of 1860.
It is a non-political non-profit and voluntary organisation. Its
members consist of public-spirited citizens who have taken up the
cause of ventilating legitimate public problems. This Society received
a large number of representations from old pensioners, individually a
large number of representations from old pensioners, individually
unable to undertake the journey through labyrinths of legal judicial
process, costly and protracted, and, therefore, approached petitioner 3
which espoused their cause. Objects for which the 3 rd petitioner-
Society was formed were not questioned. The majority decision of this
Court in
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India
rules that any member of the
public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from
violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek
enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional
or legal provision. Third petitioner seeks to enforce rights that may be
available to a large number of old infirm retirees. Therefore, its locus
standi is unquestionable. But it is a point of academic importance
because locus standi of petitioners 1 and 2 was never questioned.”

27. The Apex Court in
The All Manipur Pensioners Association vs The

State Of Manipur
[(2020) 14 SCC 625] cited supra has once again reiterated the

principle
laid down in

D.S. Nakara
case and held in paragraph Nos. 7.4 to 8.2 as

follows:

Page 28 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

“7.4 While the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of

D.S. Nakara
(supra) was relied upon by the appellant herein and as
such which came to be considered and followed by the learned
Single Judge, the Division Bench considering some of the
observations made in the cases of
Hari Ram Gupta
(supra);
R.Veerasamy (supra); Amar Nath Goyal (supra) and
P.N.
Menon
(supra), has observed and held that the decision of this Court
in the case of
D.S. Nakara
(supra) is one of the limited application
and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to
cover all schemes made by the retirees or a demand for an identical
amount of pension irrespective of the date of retirement.However, by
not following the decision of this Court in the case of
D.S.
Nakara
(supra), considering some of the observations made by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions, namely
P.N. Menon
(supra) and
other decisions, the Division Bench of the High Court has not at all
considered the distinguishable facts in the aforesaid decisions.

7.5 In the case of
P.N.Menon
(supra), the controversy was
altogether different one.

The factual position that needs to be
highlighted insofar as
P.N.Menon
(supra) is concerned, is that the
retired employees had never been in receipt of “dearness pay” when
they retired from service and therefore the O.M. in question could
not have been applied to them. This is how this Court examined the
matter. This Court also noticed that prior to the O.M. in question,
the pension scheme was contributory and only with effect from
22.9.1977, the pension scheme was made non-contributory. Since the
respondent employees in the first cited case were not in service at
the time of introducing the same they were held not eligible for the
said benefit.

Therefore
the said decision
shall not be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand, more particularly while considering
and/or applying the decision of this Court in the case of
D.S. Nakara

(supra).

7.6 In the case of Amrit Lal Gandhi (supra), pension was
introduced for the first time for the University teachers based on the
resolution passed by the Senate and Syndicate of Jodhpur
University. The same was approved by the State Government with

Page 29 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

effect from 1.1.1990. Therefore, the controversy was not between one
set of pensioners alleging discriminatory treatment as against
another set of pensioners. There were no pensioners to begin with.
The retirees were entitled to provident fund under the existing
provident fund scheme. The question of discrimination between one
set of pensioners from another set of pensioners did not arise in the
said decision. With the aforesaid facts, this Court observed that
financial viability is a relevant issue.

7.7 Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of
Indian Ex-Services League (supra) also shall not be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand.
The facts in this case and the facts in
the case of
D.S. Nakara
(supra) are clearly distinguishable.

In the
case of Indian Ex-Services League (supra), the dispute was with
respect to PF retirees and Pension retirees and to that it was held
that PF retirees and Pension retirees constitute different classes and
therefore this Court distinguished the decision of this Court in the
case of
D.S. Nakara
(supra). Therefore, the aforesaid decision shall
not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand at all.

7.8 Similarly, the decisions of this Court in the cases of

Hari Ram Gupta
(supra) and
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials
Association, Tamil Nadu
(supra) also shall not be applicable to the
facts of the case on hand.

7.9 In view of the above, we are satisfied that none of the
judgments, relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent – State, has any bearing to the controversy in hand. The
Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not
appreciating and/or considering the distinguishable facts in the
cases of
Hari Ram Gupta
(supra); R.Veerasamy (supra); Amar Nath
Goyal (supra);
P.N.Menon
(supra) and Amrit Lal Gandhi (supra).

8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz.,

Page 30 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the
purpose of grant of revised pension, In our view, such a
classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of
benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who
are entitled to pension as per the pension rules.
Article 14
of the
Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal
protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine
the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a
valid discrimination. It is true that
Article 16
of the Constitution of
India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification
must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the
just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential
consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must
necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has
to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of
differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a
reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for
a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a
classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a
rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the present controversy) is
fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable
consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or
valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied.

8.1 In the present case, the classification in question has no
reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while
revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and
purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of
living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a
classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is
unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14
of
the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and
choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for
extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be
a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly
situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.

Page 31 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

8.2 As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute
that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to
revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living.
Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners
irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As
observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class.
Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are treated
as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus
with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable,
discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification
was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new
benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be
possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into
consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be
applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the
benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already
otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to
revision.”

28. The Apex Court in Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official

Association, Tamilnadu and Ors. vs. State of Tamilnadu and Ors. [(2013) 2

SCC 772] cited supra has held in paragraph Nos.33, 34 and 35 as follows:

“33. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the
concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid
discrimination.
Article 16
of the Constitution of India permits a valid
classification (see,
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
MANU/SC/0479/1975
: (1976) 2 SCC 310. A valid classification is
based on a justobjective. The result to be achieved by the just
objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential
consideration/treatment, over others. A classification to be valid
must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing

Page 32 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

rationale has to be based on a just objective. and secondly, the
choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a
reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized
as, adistinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible
differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought
to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date(as in the present
controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for
favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid
classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied.

34. In the context of the instant appeals, it is necessary to
understand the overall objective of treating "dearness
allowance" (or a part of it) as "dearness pay". There can be no
doubt, that 'dearness allowance' is extended to employees to balance
the effects of ongoing inflation, so as to ensure that inflation does
not interfere with the enjoyment of life, to which an employee is
accustomed. Likewise, the objective of 'dearness pay' is to balance
the effects of ongoing inflation, so that a pensioner can adequately
sustain the means of livelihood to which he is accustomed. Having
understood the reason why the Government extends the benefit of
'dearness allowance' and 'dearness pay', to its employees and
pensioners respectively, we would venture to search for answers to
the twin tests which must be satisfied, for making a valid
classification (or a valid discrimination),in the present fact
situation.

35. In the present context, it needs to be kept in mind, that
'dearness allowance' ispaid to Government employees keeping in
mind the All India Consumer Price Index. Inflation in the market
place is sought to be balanced by paying 'dearness allowance' to
Government employees. When a State Government chooses to treat
'dearness allowance' as 'dearness pay', the objective remains the
same i.e., inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced for
retired employees by giving them the benefit of 'dearness pay'. Since
the component of inflation similarly affects all employees, and all
pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into service or

Page 33 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of
'dearness pay' to remedy the malady of inflation. Just like the date of
entry into service (for serving employees) would be wholly irrelevant
to determine the 'dearness allowance' to be extended to serving
employees, because the same has no relevance to the object sought
to be achieved. Likewise, the date of retirement (for pensioners)
would be wholly irrelevant to determine the 'dearness pay' to be
extended to retired employees. Truthfully, it may be difficult to
imagine a valid basis of classification for remedying the malaise of
inflation. In the absence of any objective, projected in this case, the
question of examining the reasonableness to the object sought to be
achieved, simply does not arise. Our straying into this expressed
realm of imagination, was occasioned by the fact, that the pleadings
filed on behalf of the State Government, do not reveal any reason for
the classification, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant
appeal.”

29. In the case in hand, on careful perusal of the settlement taken place

in the year 2011, the clause 11 is not binding settlement and it is only a proposal

to revise the pension to the pensioners belonging to the workmen category,

however this proposal was subject to deliberation and approval of the Pension

Trust Board. Accordingly, the Trust Board discussed and decided to revise the

pension only to the extent of 15%, that too from the date of 01.04.2015. Though

in the Apex Court judgments cited supra, it has been held that the pension is

neither bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer,

the pension is ex gratia of payment. At the same time, as far as revision of

pension is concerned, the same could not be claimed as a matter of right by the

Page 34 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

petitioners and it is the discretion of the State Government to revise the pension

unless the rules framed mandates for regular revision. In this case, admittedly

there is no provisions in the pension rules for seeking revision of pension.

30. Admittedly, the revision of pension as far as the workmen category is

concerned, it is being made on the basis of 12(3) settlements entered between the

parties, in which the managerial staff are not entitled to enter into any settlement,

or avail any benefits. The managerial staff pensioners have to wait for the

decision of the State Government to constitute the pay commission for the

purpose of complying the process of revision of pension.

31. The clarification Letter No.172/P2/TNSTCEPFT/2005 dated

08.11.2005 written by the Trust Board to the Pensioner's Association would

further clarify this aspect and it states that the wage settlement to the workers of

the State Transport reached during the month of August 2005 with retrospective

effect from 01.09.2003 and the pension also regulated accordingly. Further

reference was made to the letter dated 15.12.2005 by the Government, wherein it

is stated that the instructions have been issued as per the Rule 20(a) of the

Pension Fund Rules, which reads as follows:

Page 35 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

1. In respect of pensioners of State Transport Undertakings whose
pay scales are covered under 12(3) settlement at the time of exit
from service, Dearness Allowance may be paid at the variable
Dearness Allowance payable to the employee covered under
12(3) settlement from time to time.

2. In respect of pensioners who were drawing State Government
Pay Scales and Dearness Allowance at the time of exit from
service, the Dearness Allowance may be paid at the rates
applicable to State Government Pensioners.

In pursuance of the above orders D.A. To the pensioners are
being regulated as detailed below:

1. In respect of Officers Government Rate of D.A. is being paid.

2. In respect of the workers governed under the 12(3) settlement
V.D.A have been paid.

3. To the Technical Supervisory Staff to whom a separate wage
revision was ordered under reference 2nd cited w.e.f. 01.01.1999
with monitory effect from 01.04.1999. To them revised basic Pay
was arrived with merger of the amount equivalent to 120 V.D.A
points on their existing Pay. Full D.A was paid in respect of
them through 120 V.D.A points were merged without reducing
the merged points till 7/2004. However, Government in G.O.(D)
No.91, Transport, dt.14.07.2004 ordered to regulate the V.D.A in
respect of them to avoid double payment for 120 points, since the
same was merged with pay and informed to regulate the
Dearness Allowance payable to the employees covered under
12(3) settlement from time to time as per the Government
directions vide reference 1st cited.

4. Subsequently, the VDA to the Administrative Supervisory staff
was also regulated from 27.12.2004 on the same lines of the
Technical Supervisory Staff.

Page 36 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

32. Further, the above letter continues and narrates the procedures to be

followed for regulating the pensions to the workmen category and the

classification was sought for the following issues:

“Now, the Wage settlement was reached to the employees
retrospectively from 01.09.2003, by merging the amount equivalent to
515 V.D.A points with Basic Pay. As this being the first settlement
reached after introduction of the New Pension Scheme to the employees
and hence we request the Government to clarify in respect of the
following issues:

1. On implementation of the wage settlement retrospectively from
01.09.2003 to the staff the pay was revised in respect of the
employees who exit between 01.09.2003 and 31.08.2005. As a
result, the pension proposal has to be revised retrospectively
based on the re-fixed basic pay.

2. Consequent to the revision of the basic pension, the commutation
has to be revised in respect of pensioners i.e., employees exit
between 01.09.2003 and 31.08.2005.

3. To continue to pay the existing rate of V.D.A to the pensioners
whose date of exit falls before 01.09.2003 and for the employees/
pensioners whose date of exit falls, on or after 01.09.2003, the
V.D.A points to be adopted after the merger on 01.09.2003.

4. The minimum pension payable to the family pensioners, will
remain on the existing level of Rs.1,275/-.”

Page 37 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

33. The above letter of the Pension Trust was clarified by way of Letter

No.18496/D/2005-6 dated 16.05.2006, which reads as follows:

“I am directed to invite attention to the reference cited and to
state that the pay revision to the employees of STUs is the outcome of
Wage settlement 2005 arrived on Triparty agreement (i.e) Employees
Union, Management and Government. Moreover, the arrears of pay
has been allowed to serving employees with effect from 01.09.2003.
It is, therefore, obligatory to settle the arrears of pension for the
retired employees also with effect from 01.09.2003. The mode of
payment on the Pay commission arrears adopted in cases of
Government employees could not be adopted for State Transport
Undertakings pensioners.

2. In view of the above, I am to request you to adhere the
following:

(i). The arrears of pension accruing consequent on the Revision of
Pay due to Wage settlement 2005, may be allowed to the pensioners
of STUs with effect from 01.09.2003.

(ii). The State Transport Undertakings may be instructed that they
should not seek for any financial assistance from Government for
settlement of arrears of pension in this regard.”

34. After issuing this letter, the Government has decided to merge the

V.D.A paid to the workmen category with the basic pay in the year 2009 and

accordingly, it was decided to pay the basic pension based on the merged V.D.A

from 01.10.2007. These facts reveal that from the year 2000 onwards i.e., after

constitution of the Pension Fund Trust on 01.09.1998, the Government has

Page 38 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

followed the system of regulating the pensions of the workmen categories,

whenever there is a wage settlement. Accordingly, the pension payable was

increased by adding the V.D.A. Similarly, there is no revision of pension as far as

the pensioners belonging to the managerial staff cadre, based on settlement
u/s

12(3)
of ID Act and their pension was subject to enhancement to the extent on par

with the enhancement of Dearness Allowance to the Government servants. This

shows that the Government after constituting the Pension Fund Trust has treated

the managerial staff pensioners as a separate class. Similarly, the workmen

category were treated differently while paying the pension benefits and both form

a separate class from the date of constituting pension fund. Further, it is also

stated that, managerial staff pensioners constitute only 1% of the cadre strength of

the pensioners and remaining 99% of the pensioners belongs to workmen

category.

35. Though it is stated that the managerial staff have received revision of

pension to the extent of 40%, this revision was made in pursuant to the policy

decision taken by the Government to the extent of revision of pension on par with

the Government servants that too once in 10 years. Whereas, the workmen

category pensioners are receiving V.D.A based on the wage settlement reached

once in three years. The object for giving 40% of the revision to the managerial

Page 39 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

cadre pensioners could not be equated with the object of revision made to the

workmen category. Further at no point of time, the petitioners/ workmen

category has questioned the system of paying different types of Dearness

Allowances paid to them, i.e., following V.D.A based on cost of living Index, for

the purpose of regulating the pension.

36. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners, they were not given any

revision of Dearness Allowance, admittedly the revision of pension is also made

by merging the Dearness Allowance with the basic pay. Having enjoyed all those

pension benefits and when the Government decided to revise the pension for the

retired managerial staff, nearly after eight years from the constitution of the

pension fund, levelling allegation that there is discrimination of pension to

workmen category is not valid.

37. It is also submitted by the Government that since the managerial staff

are constituted only 1% and already there is financial difficulties raised by the

Pension Trust and they are seeking financial support to meet out the short fall to

pay various types of funds to the pensioners, is also not disputed. If the Pension

Trust is burdened with further revision of pension to the 99% of the workmen

category, it would cause huge financial implication, hence we are of the view that

Page 40 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

the classification and revision made for the managerial staff is neither arbitrary

nor irrational and the relief prayed by the petitioners herein could not be

considered and same is not having any merits and the same is liable to be

rejected.

38. Accordingly, the writ appeals and writ petitions are dismissed.

Consequently, connected civil and writ miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

(G.R.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
28.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
stn

To
1. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

2. The Financial Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,

Department of Finance, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

3. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Transports, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.

4. The Principal Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Transport Department and Chairman
of All State Transport Undertakings,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

Page 41 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn

Judgment made in
W.A.(MD).Nos.82 and 888 of 2023
and
W.P.(MD).Nos.20568 and 20856 of 2015

28.11.2025

Page 42 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 04:33:05 pm )