LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-390

P PERUMAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On April 19, 2010
P. PERUMAL Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI - 600 009 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, P. Perumal has filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 in (1) Lr. No. 26093/D/2001, dated 23.9.2002 and (2) Memo Pension. 1/06277/Pension/2001, dated 28.3.2001, quash the same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to grant monthly pension to the petitioner herein from 1.10.1999 with 18% interest.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service, as a Driver on 2.6.1979, in the Anna Transport Corporation, Salem. He started working on daily wage basis. Thereafter, by order dated 9.7.1980 in Pro. No. E4-E5/9174/ATC/BO-2, the service of the petitioner was regularized as Driver with effect from 1.7.1980. Later on, Anna Transport Corporation was renamed as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I), the 2nd respondent herein. In the course of his service in the 2nd respondent Corporation, the petitioner underwent open-heart surgery in the Apollo Hospital, Chennai and took treatment after undergoing the said surgery from 23.12.1995 to 6.1.1996. The major operation undergone by the petitioner did not allow him to undertake any arduous job. Hence, the petitioner was continuously on leave thereafter for one year, during which period, he was paid full pay and allowances for the first 3 months and half pay for 9 months. Subsequently, on medical advice, he was allotted to do duty in light vehicles for nearly two years and thereafter, he was forced to drive heavy vehicles and work as Driver.

(3.) Therefore, the petitioner made a representation expressing his inability to work in heavy vehicles especially after open-heart surgery. Since no favourable response came from the authorities, he was compelled to work as Driver in heavy vehicles. In the year 1999, the Corporation introduced the scheme of voluntary retirement. In view of that, the petitioner opted to go for voluntary retirement due to his health condition.