Madras High Court
WP/24375/2024 of V.G.MANIKANDAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 10 September 2026
WP No. 24375 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24375 of 2024
AND
WMP NO. 26633 OF 2024
V.G.Manikandan
S/o.V.Govindasamy, Serandur Post,
Villupuram Taluk And District-605 103
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09
2. The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd, Division 1 , Villupuram 605602.
3. The General Manager
Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd, Division-I, Villupuram 605602.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in vide Ka.No.326/S12/TNSTC(Vi)VM/MACT/19140/2023 dated 7.10.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequential order to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner job with effect from 4.6.2002 and to direct the respondents to settle the pension benefit and other benefits to the petitioner.
WP No. 24375 of 2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Natarajan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha
AGP For R1
Mr.M.Aswin
Standing Counsel for R2 & 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 challenging the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 by and in which the petitioner’s request for pension was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.2005 and he was only eligible for Contributory Pension Scheme.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been working in the department even prior to 01.04.2003, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is only eligible for Contributory Pension Scheme is contrary to the factual position.
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3, and would submit that even according to the impugned order, the petitioner was not regularized on 01.09.2005 but it was a reappointment. According to the appointment letter
WP No. 24375 of 2024
dated 01.09.2005, it has been specifically stipulated that he is not eligible for any pension as per the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and he is only eligible for Contributory Pension Scheme. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that when the appointment order itself specifically excludes his entitlement to the regular pension, and stipulated that he would only eligible for the Contributory Pension Scheme, unless challenging the said order, the question of claiming pension upon certain facts is not maintainable.
5. The aforesaid contention was also reiterated by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the appointment letter dated 01.09.2005 clearly stipulates that the petitioner is excluded from the regular Pension as per the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and he would only be entitled for the Contributory Pension Scheme. Such order is unchallenged. Unless the petitioner is challenging the original order, claiming pension after retirement, that too in the year 2024 is contrary to the factual position.
WP No. 24375 of 2024
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in WA.No.1734 of 2018 dated 04.09.2018 [The Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. B.Magesh and others], the above case is not applicable to the present case, as in the reported judgment, it was only a regularization. But, in the case in hand, it is a fresh appointment. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KMI To
1. The State Of Tamil nadu Rep By Its Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09
2. The Managing Director Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd, Division 1, Villupuram 605602.
3. The General Manager Tamilnadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd, Division-I, Villupuram 605602
WP No. 24375 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 24375 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 26633 OF 2024 10-09-2026