Madras HC Counts Transport Worker’s 21-Year Non-Employment Period Toward Pension, Subject To His Paying Employee Contribution

The petitioner’s dismissal dated 21 January 1999 was set aside by the High Court in W.P. No. 37213 of 2004.

That order denied back wages but granted continuity of service, including the non-employment period, for determining his pay scale on reinstatement; it also excluded monetary benefits that would otherwise have accrued.

The petitioner later sought to have the period from 21 January 1999 to 31 January 2020 counted as qualifying service for pensionary and other retirement benefits.

The respondents opposed the claim, arguing that the earlier order did not direct that the period be counted for pension and that the petitioner had only 9 years and 5 months of qualifying service.

Whether the period from 21 January 1999 to 31 January 2020 could be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the petitioner’s pensionary benefits

Whether that period could be counted subject to the petitioner paying the employee contribution for it

The Court interpreted its earlier order in W.P. No. 37213 of 2004, which set aside the dismissal and granted continuity of service, including the non-employment period, for determining the petitioner’s pay scale on reinstatement, while denying back wages and other monetary benefits that would have accrued during that period.

On a harmonious reading of that order, the Court held that the period was also to count toward qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The respondents referred to Rule 16(a)(i) of the Pension Rules as requiring 10 years of service for pension eligibility, but the Court’s operative direction rested on its interpretation of the earlier order and was conditional on payment of the employee contribution.

The Court considered the respondents’ reliance on the absence of an express pension-related direction in the earlier order to be hypertechnical.

Because the dismissal had been set aside and continuity of service had expressly been granted for determining the petitioner’s pay scale, the Court construed that continuity as extending to the calculation of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

It made the relief conditional on the petitioner paying the required employee contribution, as calculated by the third respondent.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.