A ANANTHAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in ref. No. 090129/va. Vai (2)/tha. Aa. Po. Ka (Se. Ko. 2)/2002 dated 20. 5. 2002 of the second respondent, to quash the same and direct the respondent to pay pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner taking into account his service of 21 years in the respondent's corporation.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner was initially selected as a Trainee Conductor in M/s. Anna transport Corporation Ltd. , from 9. 3. 1979. He was subsequently appointed as a daily paid Conductor from 1. 6. 1979. His services came to be regularised from 1. 5. 1981. Subsequently, he was transferred to the first respondent's corporation and joined in its service on 1. 4. 1992. As he was declared medically unfit to work as a Conductor, he was discharged from service on medical grounds from 26. 11. 1992. As on that date, he had put in 13 years, 8 months and 17 days of service and the qualifying service was ascertained as 6 years, 10 months and 6 days. On that basis, the petitioner was paid Rs. 7,303/= as service gratuity and provident fund accumulation to the tune of Rs. 13,778/=. THE petitioner prayed for alternate employment by relying upon G. O. Ms. No. 746, dated 2. 7. 1981. It is stated that his request was considered and he came to be re appointed as a "fresh entrant" in the post of Helper, after signing a settlement reached under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and he was re-appointed in the regular time scale of pay with effect from 10. 9. 1993. Subsequently, due to the petitioner's physical disability, he is stated to have applied for either VRS or discharge on medical grounds. THE petitioner's request was considered and he was discharged once again on medical grounds from 17. 4. 2001 by paying one month's wages in lieu of notice. At that point of time he was aged 56 years, 9 months and 2 days. As between the date of his re-appointment namely 10. 9. 1993 and 17. 4. 2001, the petitioner had put in 7 years, 7 months and 7 days, of which the qualifying service was determined as 3 years, 1 month and 14 days. On that basis, the petitioner's service benefits were calculated and Provident Fund accumulation, Service Gratuity under Pension scheme, Service Gratuity under normal Gratuity Rules and refund in the Post retirement Benefit Scheme were paid. THE actual net amount paid under the above four heads were as under:-

(3.) AS against the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Transport Corporation contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pension inasmuch as the earlier discharge of the petitioner on medical grounds on 24. 11. 1992 was different and distinct spell of employment for which service, whatever benefit payable to the petitioner was duly paid and therefore, subsequent employment which was admittedly a fresh employment as from 10. 9. 1993 should alone be considered for applying the pension rules. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, when the subsequent fresh employment from 10. 9. 1993 till his the discharge on 17. 4. 2001 is considered, the petitioner having failed to satisfy the requirement of 10 years of qualifying service, he is ineligible for claiming pension under the Pension rules. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, fresh employment was given to the petitioner G. O. Ms. No. 746, dated 2. 7. 2981 which specifically stipulates that such fresh employment under the Government Order would be after settling all the benefits for the past service rendered. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any pension and the order impugned in the Writ Petition should not be interfered with.