@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthamanw, J.@mdashThe Petitioner''s husband Thiru.P.N. Gajapathy was initially employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department as Driver from 20.01.1965 and he continued to work upto 30.04.1975 and 2 subsequently he was absorbed in Pallavan Transport Corporation with effect from 01.05.1975. Thereafter, when Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation was formed in the year 1982, he was sent to the said Corporation. He voluntarily retired from service on 30.10.1988 and died on 04.11.1990.
2. The Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 378, Finance Department, dated 18.04.1975 providing pension for the services rendered in the Transport Department, while they serve in the Transport Corporations i.e., the workmen would be paid both wages for the services rendered in the Transport Corporations, besides pension for the services rendered in the Transport Department, while they are in service. Pension is payable if the employees rendered 10 years of qualifying service in the Transport Department, before the absorption. In this case, the husband of the Petitioner put in 8 years and 11 months net qualifying service in the Transport Department from 01.04.1966 to 30.04.1975. Since he did not render 10 years of service, he was paid Rs. 1,918/-towards service gratuity and Rs. 1,326/-towards DCRG. In total Rs. 3,244/-was given, when he was alive in 1988.
3. The Petitioner claims family pension from the date of the death of her husband, viz., on 04.11.1990.
4. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 44840 of 2006.
5. Heard Mr. C. Manokar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the date of absorption in the Transport Corporation could not be taken as 01.04.1975 and it could be only taken as 01.04.1982, in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent submits that while pension was provided to the employees, who got absorbed in the Transport Corporations, there was no provision for family pension. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to family pension.
8. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
9. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the matter was concluded long after the death of the Petitioner''s husband by the Hon''ble Apex Court in
10. It is true that initially there was no provision of family pension, when pension was provided to the employees who got absorbed in the Transport Corporations and other Public Sector Undertakings. But the same was rectified vide the Government Order issued G.O. Ms. No. 171, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 21.03.1989, providing family pension to the widows of the employees, who got absorbed in the Transport Corporations and other Public Sector Undertakings.
11. Further, the issue was also considered by this Court on 07.03.2001 in W.P. No. 21204 of 1992 and the relevant portion of para 6 is extracted here-under:
6. ...In the aforesaid view, in my considered opinion, the members of the Petitioner Association are entitled to the family pension from the Government in respect of the services put in by them under the Government.
12. Furthermore, the issue was also considered by this Court on 06.04.2010 in W.P. No. 37249 of 2002 and a direction was issued for payment of family pension to the widow of an employee in Transport Corporation and the relevant para is extracted here-under:
5. In view of the above, the Petitioner being the widow of the deceased Sivaperumal is entitled to receive family pension from the first Respondent. No reason has been assigned by the first Respondent for not paying the family pension right from October 1994. As the Petitioner is entitled to receive family pension from the first Respondent, a direction is issued to the first Respondent to pay the Petitioner family pension from October 1994 as per G.O. Ms. No. 171, Finance Department, dated 23.03.1989. As the family pension was withheld by the first Respondent despite the entitlement of the Petitioner to receive the family pension from the first Respondent, the first Respondent is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the family pension payable to the Petitioner right from 01.10.1994 to 31.03.2010 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The above said judgment also squarely applies to the facts of the case.
13. In view of G.O. Ms. No. 171, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 21.03.1989, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. In the result, a direction is issued to the Respondent to pay pension payable to the Petitioner''s husband from 01.01.1988 to 04.11.1990 to the Petitioner and thereafter pay family pension to the Petitioner with arrears within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
