Madras HC Gives TNSTC 8 Weeks To Consider Retired Conductor’s Claim To Count Pre-Regularisation Daily-Wage Service For Pension

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s pensionable service should be reckoned from the date he became a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, rather than from the date his service was regularised

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the cited Division Bench decisions and pay any eligible amount within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were awarded

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage Conductor on 2 November 1998 and regularised on 10 August 1999. He retired on superannuation on 31 January 2024 after approximately 25 years of service.

pp. 2–3

The respondents calculated his pensionable service from the date of regularisation, rather than from the date he began contributing to the Employees’ Provident Fund. After submitting a representation seeking recalculation of his pension and related benefits, he filed this writ petition under Article 226. He relied on two Division Bench decisions concerning the reckoning of pensionable service from the date of membership of the Provident Fund Scheme

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s pensionable service should be reckoned from the date he became a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, rather than from the date his service was regularised

pp. 2–5

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider his pensionary benefits and pay any eligible amount

p. 5

03Law Applied

Under the principle stated in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Periyasamy Pitchaimuthu, W.A.(MD) No. 387 of 2010, where the applicable pension rules link pensionable service to membership of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, service may be reckoned from the date of such membership

pp. 3–4

The Division Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos. 1762 to 1766 of 2025 further held that a management which enrolled a daily-wage employee and collected pension-scheme contributions cannot later contend that pensionable service begins only upon regularisation; it cannot take advantage of its own wrong

pp. 4–5

The Court applied these precedents in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 1

the Rules (alias, unresolved) Section 2

04Reasoning

The petitioner claimed that he had contributed to the Provident Fund from 2 November 1998, but the respondents had counted service only from his regularisation on 10 August 1999.

pp. 2–5

The Court relied on the Division Bench decisions addressing the same issue and noted that the respondents’ counsel admitted the relevant position. It therefore directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in light of those decisions and determine the amount payable, rather than itself calculating or fixing the pension

pp. 2–5