Madras HC Gives TNSTC 8 Weeks To Consider Retired Driver’s Claim For Pension Credit For Pre-Regularisation PF Contributions

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s pensionable service should be reckoned from the date he began contributing to the Employees’ Provident Fund, rather than from the date his service was regularised.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the two cited Division Bench decisions and pay any amount found eligible within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage driver on 25 March 1994, regularised on 9 March 1995, and retired on 30 April 2024.

pp. 1–3

He claimed that he had contributed to the Employees’ Provident Fund from his initial appointment, but the respondents calculated his pensionable service only from the date of regularisation.

pp. 1–3

After seeking revision of his pensionary benefits, he filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

pp. 1–3

He relied on Division Bench decisions concerning the reckoning of pensionable service from the date an employee became a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme; the respondents’ counsel admitted the applicability of those decisions.

pp. 3–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s pensionable service should be reckoned from the date he began contributing to the Employees’ Provident Fund, rather than from the date his service was regularised.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider revising the petitioner’s pensionary benefits in light of the cited Division Bench decisions.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in TNSTC v. Periyasamy Pitchaimuthu, W.A.(MD) No. 387 of 2010, which held that, under Section 2(q)(iii) of the applicable Rules, pensionable service could be reckoned from the date the employee became a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme.

p. 4

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) Nos. 1762 to 1766 of 2025, which held that where management enrolled a daily-wage employee and collected contributions under the pension scheme, it could not contend that pensionable service began only upon regularisation; an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

the Rules (alias, unresolved) Section 2

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s claim was that his Provident Fund membership and contributions began on 25 March 1994, before his regularisation. The Division Bench decisions supported reckoning pensionable service from the date of membership or contribution, and the respondents admitted the relevance of those decisions.

pp. 2–5

Applying those authorities, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in their light, rather than itself determining the revised pension amount or arrears.

p. 5