T.Ravi vs The Additional Chief Secretary,

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Standing counsel for R3
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
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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.”
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
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.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )

2026:MHC:4271
WP No. 4519 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
JRS
WP No. 4519 of 2022
15-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:05 pm )