Employees Regularised After Cut-Off Date and Governed by 12(3) Settlement Cannot Claim Old Pension Scheme Benefits

The appellant was temporarily appointed as a driver in the Respondent Transport Corporation and was subsequently regularized in service on 01.09.2005

He retired from service on 31.10.2018

Eight years after retirement and six years after a rejected representation for retrospective regularization, the appellant filed a writ petition in 2026

The Writ Court dismissed the petition (W.P. No. 1026 of 2026) on the grounds that the appellant was absorbed after the pension cut-off date of 01.04.2003

The appellant challenged this order via the present Writ Appeal.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme despite being regularized after the cut-off date of 01.04.2003?

2. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the terms of service are governed by a 12(3) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act?

The Court applied the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 for eligibility under the Old Pension Scheme, as affirmed by the Full Bench judgment in W.A. No. 158 of 2016

The Court also relied on the principle that employees governed by a Section 12(3) Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are bound by the prospective nature of such settlements, as established in Managing Director, TNSTC v. Veeraiyya (W.A.(MD).No.442 of 2025; 2025:MHC:2050), which held that writ petitions are not maintainable for claims conflicting with such settlements

The Court observed that the appellant's service was regularized on 01.09.2005, which falls well after the mandatory cut-off date of 01.04.2003 required for the Old Pension Scheme; thus, he is legally ineligible for those benefits

the Court noted that the appellant's service conditions were governed by a 12(3) Settlement dated 31.08.2005, which explicitly extended benefits prospectively from 01.09.2005

Applying the precedent in Veeraiyya, the Court reasoned that since the appellant was governed by this industrial settlement, the writ petition was not entertainable

the Court highlighted the significant delay, noting the claim was raised eight years after retirement

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, confirming the order of the Writ Court. No costs were awarded