Madras HC Gives Transport Corp 8 Weeks To Consider Retired Conductor’s Pre-Regularisation PF Period 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 of regularisation.

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 Conductor on 27 January 1993, regularised on 13 November 1993, and retired on 31 July 2023 after 30 years of service.

pp. 2–3

He claimed that he had contributed to the Employees’ Provident Fund from his initial appointment and sought to have his pensionable service calculated from 27 January 1993, rather than from the date of regularisation.

pp. 2–3

After submitting a representation on 27 October 2025, he filed this writ petition seeking revised pensionary benefits and consequential monetary relief.

pp. 2–3

He relied on two Division Bench decisions, and the respondents’ counsel admitted the relevant position.

pp. 3–4

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 of regularisation.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the respondents should consider his claim for revised pensionary benefits in light of the cited Division Bench decisions.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

In TNSTC v. Periyasamy Pitchaimuthu, W.A.(MD) No. 387 of 2010, the Division Bench held that, under the applicable pension rules, pensionable service may be reckoned from the date an employee became a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme; it referred to Section 2(q)(iii) of the Rules in reaching that conclusion.

pp. 3–4

In W.A.(MD) Nos. 1762 to 1766 of 2025, the Division Bench observed that where the management enrolled a daily-wage employee and collected contributions under the pension scheme, it could not then deny membership or restrict pensionable service to the period after regularisation, applying the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

p. 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 his initial appointment date, 27 January 1993.

pp. 3–5

The cited Division Bench decisions addressed the treatment of service before regularisation where an employee had become a member of the scheme or the management had collected contributions.

pp. 3–5

The respondents admitted the relevance of those decisions.

pp. 3–5

Applying them, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim in their light; it did not itself determine the amount of pension payable or expressly award the claimed interest.

pp. 3–5