K.Dhandapani v. The Administrator

O R D E R The petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.06.2018 issued by the third respondent, whereby it was held that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Scheme.

¶2The petitioner, while serving in the respondent Corporation, voluntarily retired from service on 24.04.1995. The respondents subsequently formulated the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Scheme, which came into force in 1998. Since the petitioner had retired voluntarily prior to the commencement of the said Pension Fund Scheme, his claim for grant of pension came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition. Page2 of 4

¶3Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶4The scheme providing for grant of pension to the employees of the respondent Corporation came into effect from 01.09.1998. The said scheme provides for grant of pension only to existing employees who were members of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, or who were on the regular rolls of the State Transport Undertakings in accordance with the instructions issued or authorised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the present case, the petitioner was not an existing employee on the date of commencement of the scheme and was also not a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension under the scheme, which came into force on 01.09.1998, after his retirement from service.

¶5The petitioner had retired from service in the year 1995, and though the scheme came into force in the year 1998, the claim for pension was made only in the year 2017. The impugned communication issued by the third respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the scheme and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Page3 of 4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. GSA

6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GSA To

¶1The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Tiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.

¶2The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road, (Kovai Division) Erode 638 001.

¶3The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road, (Kovai Division) Erode 638 001. Page4 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.38231 of 2018 K.Dhandapani S/o.Karuppanna Velar, No.90 SSHM Nagar, Gandhipuram, Alanyiyam Road, Dharapuram 638 656, Tiruppur District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Tiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2. 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road, (Kovai Division) Erode 638 001. 3. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Regional Office No.45, Sennimalai Road, (Kovai Division) Erode 638 001. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER – This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records Page1 of 4 relating the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Reg.No.2555/PF4/TNSTC/Erode /2018, dated 18/06/2018 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to sanction the monthly pension for the petitioner under the scheme of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and disburse the same together with interest at the rate of 12 percent to the petitioner with stipulated times as fix by this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent(s): Mr.C.S.K.Satish, Standing Counsel (for R1) Mr.M.Murali Vinodh, Standing Counsel (for RR2 & 3)