S RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the Proceedings dated 19.10.2005 in Letter Pa. No. 11455/PF/TNSTC/CBE/ED/2005 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of his voluntary retirement with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of settlement of pension.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor under the respondents on 21.12.1978 at Dharapuram Branch of the respondents Corporation. In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner and other employees of the respondents Corporation were governed by the Central Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The State of Tamil Nadu, first respondent herein issued Rules vide G.O. Ms. No. 135 Transport Department dated 15.12.2000 called Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, herein after referred to as 'the Rules' which came into force with retrospective effect from 01.09.1998.

(3.) Mr. K. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner due to his family circumstances, opted for voluntary retirement from the service on 05.01.2004. The petitioner's offer was accepted by the second respondent and he was permitted to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 29.03.2004 by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.03.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has completed nearly 25 years of service and completed the age of 45 years and 11 months and he was permitted to retire from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The petitioner has further stated that he submitted his application dated 19.08.2005 seeking pension, however, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the third respondent by his letter dated 19.10.2005 in Pa. No. 11455/PF/TNSTC/CBE/ED/2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 50 years of age on the date of his retirement, as per Rules. Hence, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the first respondent on 02.03.2006, requesting him to grant pension in accordance with law.