Madras High Court
WP/4519/2022 of T.Ravi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 4519 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010265332022}
T.Ravi
S/o.Thanikachalam, No.19.2nd Cross, Sundaraj Nagar, 100 Feet Road, Mudaliarpet Post, Puducherry, Pin -605 004.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Transport Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd., Salamedu, Vazhuthareddy, villupuram -600 602.
3. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund trust,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the continuity of service from 21/01/1999 to 31 /01/2020 position for the purpose of counting the length of service and to pay the petitioner terminal benefits Provident Fund, Gratuity, commutation including Pensionary benefits all other retrial benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. N.Desinghu
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S.Ilamvaludhi, Spl.G.P. for R1
M/s. M.Aswin For R2.
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Standing counsel for R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the period of service from 21.01.1999 to 31.01.2020 as continuous service for the purpose of calculating the length of service and to pay the petitioner the terminal benefits, including Provident Fund, gratuity, commutation, pensionary benefits and all other retirement benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, challenging the order of dismissal dated 21.01.1999, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.97 of 1999, which was dismissed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.37213 of 2004, and this Court, by order dated 03.04.2019, set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner was also set aside.
3. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to treat the period of dismissal as qualifying service for the purpose of determining the petitioner's pay scale at the time of reinstatement. However, despite such a direction, the respondents have not taken the said period into account for calculating the petitioner's qualifying service, thereby denying him pensionary benefits. Hence, the learned counsel prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the said period for the purpose of calculating and granting pensionary benefits.
4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, who would submit that, as per the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.37213 of 2004, dated 03.04.2019, the direction was only to treat the said period for the purpose of fixing the petitioner's pay scale at the time of reinstatement. The said order did not contain any direction to count the said period for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.
5. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has rendered only 9 years and 5 months of qualifying service and, therefore, is not eligible for pension under Rule 16(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, which requires completion of 10 years of service to become eligible for pension. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
7. The point for consideration is whether the period from 21.01.1999 to 31.01.2020 can be counted for the purpose of calculating the petitioner's qualifying service for pensionary benefits. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.37213 of 2004, dated 03.04.2019: “11.In the light of the foregoing observations, the order of dismissal passed by the respondent herein dated 21.01.1999, dismissing the petitioner from his service, as well as the award of the Labour Court dated 15.05.2002 passed in I.D.No.97 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Cuddalore, are set aside. Since the petitioner has not worked from the date of his dismissal, he shall not to entitled for the wages during this period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. Nevertheless, the petitioner shall be entitled for the continuity of service, including the period of his non-employment, for the purpose of determining his pay scale at the time of reinstatement. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to seek for the monetary benefits that would have accrued, in view of this continuity of his service. The respondents shall issue a copy of reinstatement as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
8. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate him. The said order contains a specific direction to count the period of dismissal for the purpose of determining the petitioner's pay scale on the date of reinstatement.
9. The respondents now contend that, in the absence of a specific direction to count the said period for calculating pensionary benefits, the same cannot be taken into account for that purpose. According to this Court, such stand is hyper technical.
10. This Court is of the considered view that, on a harmonious reading of the above order, particularly in view of the fact that the punishment of dismissal was set aside and a specific direction was issued to take the said period into account for determining the petitioner's pay scale on the date of reinstatement. Such order goes without saying that the said period should also required to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the petitioner's qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
11. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner has not paid the employee's contribution for the said period. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the employee's contribution for the said period.
12. In view of the above submissions and the findings recorded herein above, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's claim, subject to payment of the requisite employee's contribution. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to count the period from 21.01.1999 to 31.01.2020 for the purpose of calculating the petitioner's qualifying service for pensionary benefits, subject to the petitioner paying his contribution, as calculated by the third respondent.
13. The respondents are directed to complete the above exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Salamedu, Vazhuthareddy, villupuram -600 602.
3. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund trust, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS WP No. 4519 of 2022 15-10-2026