ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras (in short the 'Tribunal') disposing of several applications filed by the respondents. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that respondents were entitled to pension in terms of G.O.Ms. No.378 issued by the Finance Department of the appellant-State dated 18-4-1975 read with G.O.Ms. No.378, Transport Department, dated 23-9-1985.
(2.) BACKGROUND facts as highlighted by the appellants are essentially as follows : The respondents were employees of the erstwhile Transport Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. Till 1972 the public transportation was managed and run as a Government Department conferring the status of Government servants to all employees of the State Transport Department. Pursuant to the policy decision of the State, Corporations were formed. Initially, the employees were sent to the said Corporations on deputation. As there was reluctance on their part to be absorbed with the Transport Corporations giving up their status and benefits available to government servants, the Government by G.O.Ms. No.378 dated 18-4-1975 issued orders offering pension for the services rendered in the Transport Department while they served in the transport corporations. But the pension offered in the said G.O.Ms. No. 378 dated 18-4-1975 was denied to the respondents. Hence, they filed applications before the Tribunal with a prayer that direction be given to the present appellants to pay the eligible pension to the applicants before the Tribunal for services rendered by them in the transport department in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 378 of the Finance Department dated 23-9-1985. Two categories of cases were filed; one related to cases where pension was denied on the ground that the applicants had not put in the qualifying service of 10 years. Their services were counted from the date of permanent absorption in the Transport Department instead of their date of entry into service on 15-9-1975 i.e. the date of absorption in Transport Corporations and in the second type of cases the employees were not given benefit of pension while in service in the Transport Corporation as per G.O.Ms. 378. The Government referred to G.O. No. 212 to deny the benefit. It was pointed out by the present appellants that the respondents had opted to continue under Operational Subordinate Service Rules (in short the 'Operational Rules') when pension was offered to operation staff in G.O. No. 212 dated 28-3-1974. Acting on the basis of demand raised by certain employees the aforesaid G.O. No.212 dated 28-3-1974 was issued extending pensionary benefits and called for exercising options either to remain in the existing scheme or to come under pension scheme. The State of Tamil Nadu was at the relevant point of time following two types of schemes. One was the pensionary scheme under Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 (in short 'Liberalised Rules') and other was known as Non-Pensionary Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short the 'Provident Fund Scheme') under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Retiring Invalid and Compassionate Gratuity (Non-Pensionable Establishment) Rules. As noted above, the G.O.No. 212 was issued on 23-9-1974. When the G.O. was issued certain doubts were entertained as to under which scheme the concerned employees were covered. According to the appellants the respondents opted to continue in the Non-pensionary Contributory Provident Fund scheme by exercising option in writing under Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules (in short 'Pension Rules'). Certain benefits were granted on 18-7-1975 to the employees engaged by the Public Sector Undertakings and the State Government.
(3.) THERE were some connected issues which had been dealt with by this Court in detail in Government of "Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. M. Ananchu Asari and Ors. (2003 (10) SCC 503) and Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. M. Ananchu Asari and Ors. (2005 (2) SCC 332). These cases related to fixation of cut off dates for granting/calculating pensionary benefits. In M. Ananchu Asari's case (supra) it was held as follows : "Hence, the fixation of the cut-off date as 1-4-1982 would, in our view, be appropriate. Taking into account the aforementioned date for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service, we direct the appellants to take steps to extend the pensionary benefits to the eligible employees. Having regard to the conduct of the respondents in seeking the remedy long after the options were exercised, we consider it just and proper to direct that the respondent employees whoever have retired should get the arrears of pension only from 1-1-1988, which date is fixed with reference to the year of filing the first writ petition, namely WP No. 7012 of 1988. The fixation of pension and payment of arrears should be done accordingly within a period of four months from today. The appellants are entitled to adjust the monetary benefits which the employees would not have received if they were to receive the pension." In the review petition's decision in M. Ananchu Asari's case (supra) it was observed as follows : "Certain contentions are raised on the merits, especially, in regard to the conclusion of this Court that the process of absorption did not take place in 1975. We are not inclined to rehear the arguments on merits. If the petitioners failed to furnish the necessary material even during the pendency of appeal in this Court, that is no ground to review the judgment. THERE is also nothing to be clarified insofar as the operative part of the judgment is concerned. It is not necessary for us to express any view on the question whether the Transport Corporation employees who were erstwhile government servants retiring after 1-1-1988 would be eligible to get the pension in addition to the salary drawn by them in the Corporation as per the Rules and GOs applicable to them. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent employees that the GOs issued by the government themselves contemplated such payment and in fact those who were parties to the earlier writ petitions were given that benefit. This issue cannot legitimately form the subject matter of either review or clarification." Stand of the appellants in these appeals is that the aforesaid two decisions did not relate to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the aforesaid two judgments.;