IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.23913 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.Sivadurai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp. Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007. 2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees, Pension Fund Trust, Administrative Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2. 3.The Asst.Manager (Pension & PF Section) TNSTC., (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007. ... Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records connected with the orders dated 23.08.2006 passed by the 2nd Respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for VRS in his proceedings No.E4/28154/TNSTC (Salem)/2006 and the consequential proceedings Lr.No.O.U./TNSTC(Salem)/2008 dated 27.11.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash both of them and directing respondents to sanction pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner for his 26 years of qualifying service and also interest for belated payment of retiral benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Girija For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi for R1 and R2 O R D E R
The petitioner was an Assistant working in the respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the third respondent and after setting aside the same seeks to sanction pension and other retiral benefits for his 26 years of service in the Corporation.
2. When the writ petition came up on 22.10.2010, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation took notice. Accordingly, he has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent dated 19.01.2011.
3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has made an application on 10.08.2006 to go on voluntary retirement. The said application was considered by the first respondent and was rejected by an order dated 23.08.2006. In that order, it was stated that for the purpose of availing voluntary retirement, a workman must have put in 20 years of service and he must have completed 50 years. Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner made an application stating that he may be medically discharged on ground of his hypertension. Therefore, the petitioner was sent for medical examination by the Medical Board attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem. The Medical Board found the petitioner fit for duty vide Certificate dated 08.01.2007. The Medical Board on his allegation of hypertension merely stated that his leave for the relevant period may be sanctioned. It was thereafter the petitioner by a letter dated 19.03.2007 resigned his post by citing family reasons as well as his health condition and also that he could not discharge his duty properly. His resignation was accepted by the General Manager of the Transport Corporation on 21.03.2007. He was also given Service Certificate. Subsequent to his resignation being accepted, the petitioner’s Provident Fund and other terminal benefits were settled. It was thereafter, the petitioner was making several representation seeking for grant of pension on alternative grounds. When the same was not forthcoming, he has filed the present writ petition.
4. In answer to the petitioner’s demand, the respondents in their counter affidavit had stated that since the petitioner’s earlier voluntary retirement was not in terms of the Rules of the Corporation, he was informed that he was not eligible to retire under V.R.S. Under Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee’s Pension Fund Trust Rules, an employee who resigns from service is not eligible for pension and the relevant Rule 2(i) was also quoted. It was also stated that even to go under V.R.S., as per the scheme, on the relevant date, the petitioner had not completed 50 years of age which is a second requirement for admitting the petitioner under the V.R.S.
5. Notwithstanding the counter, Ms.S.Girija, learned counsel for the petitioner made two contentions. Firstly, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.Vijayarangan v. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl.Bench), Madurai reported in 2009 Writ L.R.12, wherein a Division Bench had held that resignation will not forfeit a claim for pension. However, in that case, the Court was not dealing with a case relating to a Pension Trust organised by the Corporation. It was only dealing with Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,1978. In any event in that case, when an employee originally resigned from service, but on recovering from illness requested the Government to reinstate him in service, but the same was rejected. By that time, he had already attained the age of superannuation. In that context, the Court had held that Rule 23 of the Pension Rules has to be inconsonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. Those who resign because of illness or ill-health and not because of any misconduct or adverse record and are allowed to do so by the State, are entitled for the same benefit which is allowed to those who resign to join some other service under the State.
6. It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any relevance to the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner’s request for VRS was rejected on the specific ground viz., that he had not completed 50 years of age which is required under law. In answer to the said stand of the respondents, the learned counsel referred to the circular of the Corporation dated 27.11.1990 (found at page 13 of the typed set) that the special scheme for voluntary retirement had been modified. It is applicable to employees who have got 50 years of age and that minimum of 15 years of service or 20 years of qualifying service. Apparently, the petitioner is not a person who had applied under the scheme. Even the scheme indicates that completion of 50 years of age as a requirement.
7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it cannot be said that only on the ground of ill-health, the petitioner had resigned from service, but the resignation letter contains two other reasons viz., family circumstances and also his inability to discharge his duties properly. But this contention cannot be accepted because on 08.01.2007, the Medical board had found the petitioner fit on being referred by the Corporation.
8. The present claim of the petitioner is to somehow get pension by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which first of all did not arise under the relevant rules of the Corporation. Secondly, this court cannot rewrite the Pension Rules by stating that notwithstanding the Pension Rules forfeiting the resignation as a disqualifying factor yet employees must be directed to get pension. Such a power do not exist for this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. The writ petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp. Ltd.,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem 636 007.
2.The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees, Pension Fund Trust,
Administrative Office, Thiruvalluvar House,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.
3.The Asst.Manager (Pension & PF Section)
TNSTC., (Salem) Ltd.,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem 636 007