Madras High Court
M.Draviam vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 10 March, 2021
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
W.P.(MD)No.10659 of 2008:
M.Draviam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Finance Advisor cum
Chief Accounts Officer,
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Thiruvalluvar House,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Thiruvalluvar House,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2.
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
4.The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating
to the impugned letter vide letter No.70304/C4/AVIBOKA/06 dated
21.10.2008 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondent to furnish the petitioner the copy of the actual
option from exercised by the petitioner pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.212
dated 28.1.1974.
W.P.(MD)No.12394 of 2010:
N.V.Geetham Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.
4.The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Melur Road, Madurai. ... Respondents
2/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the entry made in the service book based on the proforma of the option
exercised by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28-03-1974 and
quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to bring him
under the coverage of Madras Liberalized Pension Rules 1960 and direct
them to pay the petitioner pension with arrears along with interest
thereupon.
W.P.(MD)No.12395 of 2010:
P.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.
4.The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Melur Road, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the entry made in the service book based on the proforma of the option
3/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
exercised by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28-03-1974 and
quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to bring him
under the coverage of Madras Liberalized Pension Rules 1960 and direct
them to pay the petitioner pension with arrears along with interest
thereupon.
W.P.(MD)No.12396 of 2010:
R.Gandhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.
4.The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Melur Road, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the entry made in the service book based on the proforma of the option
exercised by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28-03-1974 and
quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to bring him
under the coverage of Madras Liberalized Pension Rules 1960 and direct
4/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
them to pay the petitioner pension with arrears along with interest
thereupon.
W.P.(MD)No.12397 of 2010:
P.V.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.
4.The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Melur Road, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the entry made in the service book based on the proforma of the option
exercised by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28-03-1974 and
quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to bring him
under the coverage of Madras Liberalized Pension Rules 1960 and direct
them to pay the petitioner pension with arrears along with interest
thereupon.
5/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010
For Petitioners
all petitions : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathya Singh
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 in all W.Ps
: Mr.S.Baskaran
Standing Counsel
for R.2 to R.4 in W.P.(MD)NO.10659 of 2008 and
for R.2 and R.3 in W.P.(MD)Nos.12394 to 12397 of 2010
*****
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues arise in all these petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this Common order.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in the erstwhile Transport Corporation and while they were working, the first respondent extended the pension benefits through G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 28.03.1974, by invoking Madras Liberalized Pension Rules 1960 (in short MLPR) to the transport employees of certain categories such as Driver, Conductor, Technician etc, since they 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 were covered by non-pensionable scheme by virtue of a special Rule viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operational Subordinate Retiring Invalid and Compassionate gratuities (Non-pensionable establishment) Rule (in short known as OSSR). By virtue of the said G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 28.03.1974, an option was given to the transport employees to express their desire either to continue in the said existing Rule known as OSSR or to come under new rule known as MLPR In order to exercise the option, a cut off date was given as on or before 30.06.1974 and if there is no option exercised by an employee within the cut off date, he will be automatically brought under MLPR. Some of the employees gave their option before the cut off date and some of them gave their option after the cut off date. Accordingly, the petitioners' names were entered in the old OSSR scheme, and thereby they are not able to draw any pension. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed by the petitioners.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in some of the cases, the petitioners exercised their option without knowing the consequences and subsequently, there are several litigations 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 filed and all those litigations were ended in favour of the employees and hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court may issue appropriate directions to the respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28.03.1974 in favour of the petitioners to enable them to get monthly pension.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wages Conductor and Driver respectively and later absorbed into monthly cadre and subsequently, they retired from service and the petitioners had opted to remain under OSSR with reference to G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28.03.1974 and as per the above said Government Order, the last option date was declared as on 30.06.1974 and subsequently the last date of exercising the option was extended upto 31.12.1974. It is further submitted that those who did not exercise the option would automatically deem to have come under MLPR rule. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for pension for the services rendered in the erstwhile Transport Corporation since the petitioners have opted the OSSR scheme. It is further submitted that the petitioners had never denied the 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 payment towards OSSR gratuity for the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Transport Corporation. The petitioners were knowing well that they have specifically exercised the option for settlement under OSSR prior to 31.12.1973. Hence, the petitioners were sanctioned OSSR gratuity as noted against each with PF double share. It has also been noted that the petitioners have never denied the payment of gratuity amount settled under OSSR and PF double share. Hence, it is very clear that the claim now preferred by the petitioners is only after thought. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
6. On a perusal of the counter affidavit it would reveal that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wages and later they absorbed into monthly cadre and thereafter, they retired from service. While they were in service, they opted to remain under old scheme ie., 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 OSSR scheme, as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated. 28.03.1974. Further, it would reveal that as per the said Government Order, if a person opted to remain in the old scheme or to continue in the new scheme, as per the option, the pension will be granted. It appears that if a person did not exercise the option, they would automatically deem to have come under the new scheme. All these writ petitioners have already opted the old Scheme ie., OSSR scheme and they were paid with the benefits including the gratuity and provident fund benefit as per OSSR scheme before 1988 itself and having received the entire benefits as per the old scheme, filing of the writ petitions after the lapse of 23 years seeking the above said prayer cannot be granted. Once settled things cannot be unsettled after a long period of time.
7. The very same issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(MD)NO.11956 of 2010 and this Court, vide order dated 23.10.2019, held as follows:
“17.In this case, the option form itself is produced before this Court and the contention of the respondents that the option was in fact received and accepted is supported by 10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 endorsements in the service book. Hence, the respondents have acted upon on the basis of option. Any irregularity in acceptance of such option cannot be permitted to be raised at this length of time to the disadvantage of the respondents. It is a fit case, where, the Writ Petition can be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. In view of the above reasons and also considering the above said decision, all the writ petitions are misconceived and they are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches also. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 10.03.2021
Internet : Yes/No
SSL
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
11/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
SSL W.P.(MD)Nos.10659 of 2008 and 12394 to 12397 of 2010 10.03.2021 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in