THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS versus N. GOVINDAN ACHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRET ARY TO GOVERNMENT 
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS 
{ 
~: 
N. GOVINDAN ACHARY AND ORS. 
B 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
[ARIJITPASA YAT ANDC.K. THAKKER, JJ] 
" 
.. 
Service law 
c 
Pension-Transport department of Government of Tamil Nadu-
Conversion into Corporation-Pension to employees for service in 
Department--Claim for· -Held: Employees were not entitled to pension-As 
per different Government Orders. earning of pension was relatablt! to 
Government service and period stipulated for that was ten years which they 
D did not have--Further, they preferred to remain under the Provident Fund 
Scheme when option of pension was given to them under G.O.Ms No. 212 
dated 28-3-1974, which has not been superseded by G.O.Ms No. 378 dated 
18-4-1975. 
E 
Respondents were employees of the erstwhile transport department in 
the State of Tamil Nadu, which till the year 1972 was run as a Government 
Department, and conferred on them the status of Government servants. 
Thereafter, pursuant to policy decision of the State, Corporations were formed. 
Initially, they were sent to the said Corporations on deputation. However, as 
• 
there was reluctance on their part to be absorbed in the Corporation and to 
F give up status and benefits available to Government servants, the Finance 
Department of appellant-state by G.0.Ms No. 378 dated 18-4-1975 offered 
pension for the services rendered in the Transport Department while they 
served in the transport corporations. However, as they were denied pension 
despite this offer, they filed applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative 
G 
Tribunal seeking pension for services rendered by them in the transport 
department, relying further on G.O.Ms No. I028 dated 23-9-1985 of appellant's 
Finance Department. 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 
'y 
qualifying service of I 0 years, counting their service from the date of their 
permanent absorption in the Transport Department instead of date of their 
H 
898 
COMMR. AND SECRETARY TOGOVf. TPT. DEPT, FORT ST. GEORGE" N GOVINDAN ACHARY 
899 
absorption in Transport Corporations. The second type of cases were of A 
> 
employees who were not given benefit of pension while in service in the 
) 
Transport Corporation as per G.O.Ms 378 ibid. Appellant denied the claim of 
respondents pointing out that they had opted to continue under Operational 
Subordinate Service Rules when the pension was offered to operation staff in 
G.O. No. 212 dated 28-3-1974 of transport department. The Tamil Nadu B 
Administrative Tribunal held that respondents were entitled to pension in 
terms of G.O.Ms. No. 378 ibid read with G.O.Ms No. l 028 ibid. Hence the 
present appeal. 
~ 
+ 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD. 1. The stand of the State Government appears to be correct The c 
view expressed by the Tribunal is indefensible and is set aside. 1910-CI 
2. On a reading of the GOs, the crucial expressions appear to be pension/ 
gratuity 'earned by him', and the period stipulated is to years. This is 
indicative of the fact that the position is relatable to Government service and 
the qualifying service is to years in terms of the Pension Rules. If the D 
respondents' stand is accepted it would mean that even if no benefit under the 
Government scheme is available yet the pensionary benefits have to be given. 
1907-C, DI 
3. From the factual details available it appears that the respondents E 
preferred to remain under the Provident Fund Scheme. In the affidavits filed 
by the respondents in respect of the stand taken as to exercise of option, there 
is no specific denial. On the contrary, it is stated that the defendant does not 
• 
remember whether option was exercised. (907-EI 
... 
4.1. It is to be noted that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis as ;f G.O. F 
378 superseded G.O. 212. G.O. 378 refers to exercise of the option by the 
employees who wanted to be covered by the scheme. If really this G.O. was 
intended to supersede G.O. 212, the least that could have been done is to refer 
to G.O. 212 which is admittedly not the position. G.O. 378 nowhere refers to 
any exercise of option under Go 212. (907-F] 
G 
4.2. Bare reading ofG.O. No. 378 and G.O. No. 212 does not indicate 
that former superseded latter. Admittedly, if the stand of the respondents is 
accepted the expression 'earned by him' becomes superfluous. That can never

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.