RAJAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.Rajammal's husband late M.Rangaswamy, who was appointed as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 1.5.69, was absorbed in the erstwhile Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited on 14.82, presently known as the State Express Transport Corporation Limited. After serving in various Corporations, finally the petitioner's husband late M.Rangaswamy retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.95 and he was also drawing the Government pension for the services rendered in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department from 1.5.69 to 31.3.82 under the Pension Payment Order No.C381640/TPT. After his retirement, he was also drawing pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the services rendered in the State Express Transport Corporation Limited from 1.4.82 to 30.4.95. Unfortunately he passed away on 16.10.2012. After his death, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been receiving a sum of Rs.529/ - as the family pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 from the Sub Treasury through the State Bank of India, Bhavani Sagar Branch. As the said amount was very meagre and the Government's family pension was not paid to her for the services rendered by her husband in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department from 1.5.69 to 31.3.82 and that the Government also issued an order stating that the employees of the erstwhile Transport Department who were permanently absorbed in the Transport Corporations are not entiled to the benefit of family pension, the said order was put to challenge in W.P.No.21204 of 1992 by the Tamil Nadu State Transport and Transport Corporation Retired Employees Association, which was allowed by order dated 7.3.2011. Thereafter the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department dated 6.6.2002 extending the benefit only to the members of the Association who had filed the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the same Association filed another W.P.No.19585 of 2003 on the ground that the benefit granted in W.P.No.21204 of 1992 by order dated 7.3.2001 should be extended to the other employees who were similarly placed. The said writ petition was also allowed and consequently the Government came forward to extend the benefit of family pension to all the employees of the State Transport Department by issuing G.O.Ms.No.189, Transport Department dated 13.8.2004. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department dated 6.6.2002 making it clear that the order in G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 13.8.2004 was not applicable to the members of the Association who were absorbed in the State Transport Undertakings and who had come under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme from 16.11.95 onwards and entitled for getting family pension under the Employees Provident Fund Act. This was also challenged by one Tmt.A.Loganayaki, spouse of an ex -employee, in W.P.No.35643 of 2007. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 12.1.2009, pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1246 of 2009 vide order dated 18.8.2010, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 13.5.2011 in C.C.No.8381 of 2011, the Government implemented the order by issuing G.O.(3D) No.38, Transport Department dated 7.9.2011. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner, who is similarly placed like that of Tmt.A.Loganayaki, spouse of an ex -employee, should be extended the same benefit.

(2.) Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned standing counsel for the third respondent, fairly conceding to the said prayer, submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 18.8.2010, while giving a direction to the first respondent herein to sanction family pension to the appellant therein with effect from 13.8.2004, made it clear that the appellant Tmt.A.Loganayaki was not entitled to the Employees Provident Fund pension with a further direction to the first respondent to deduct the Employees Provident Fund pension paid to the appellant therein with effect from 13.8.2004 as well as the amount paid to her husband by way of employer's contribution viz., Rs.50,788/ - from the arrears payable to her. The said order, he pleaded, also made it clear that in case the arrears amount was not sufficient to recover the amount indicated above, it was open to the respondents to recover the balance from the monthly pension payable to the appellant in 36 equal instalments.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.