THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus M. ANANCHU ASARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1104 · Decided: 29-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
v. 
M. ANANCHU ASARI AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 2003 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pension-Cut-off date-Fixation of-Criterion for-Held : Cannot 
C be arbitrary or whimsical-Date of permanent absorption is a material 
aspect inf txing the date of cut-off 
Pension-Entitlement to-Cut-off date---Fixation of-Transport 
Department employees sent on deputation to newly formed Transport 
D Corporation and permanently absorbed later on-Cut-off date for claiming 
pensionary benefitsftxed as 1.5.1975-Fresh options invited by 28.2.1982-
High Court struck down ftxation of cut-off date as 1. 5.197 5 being arbitrary 
and illegal-Correctness of-Held : Process of absorption not completed 
in 1975-Hence, High Court rightly struck down the cut-off date-On 
facts, 1.4.1982 ftxed as the new cut-off date. 
E 
Pension-Absorption-Government order calling for fresh opti.Jns 
for pensionary entitlement struck down by High Court-Effect of-Held: 
Such options do not become non est in the eye of law-It shows that the 
process of absorption was not regarded as complete by the Government-
F High Court did not adjudicate upon the validity of cutt-off date-Hence, 
options exercised pursuant to struck down Government order regained 
their efficacy. 
The respondents were originally employed in the State Transport 
G Department. Pursuant to the decision taken by the appellant-State to 
form separate Transport Corporation the respondents were sent on 
deputation to the Corpporation up to 30.4.1975. From 1.5.1975 onwards, 
the Corporation had framed its own Rules and absorded the respondent 
permanently based on the options exercised by them. 
H 
In order to extend the benefit of pension to the Government 
1104 
" . 
" 
f 
~
.. / 
GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASARI 
1105 
servants permanently absorbed in the State Public Sector Corporations A 
based on their options, the appellant-State issued Government Order 
for permanent absorption. The last date for exercising options was 
fixed as 1.5.1975. 
The High Court held the said cut-off date as illegal and arbitrary. B 
The High Court further directed the appellant-State to fix a fresh cut-
off date taking into consideration the services of the respondents. 
Hence the appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that for all practical 
purposes, the process of absorption of the deputed respondents was C 
completed by 1.5.1975 by which date even the Transport Department 
got disbanded; and that there was nothing arbitrary in the policy 
decision fixing the cut-off date as 1.5.1975. 
The following question arose before, the Court. 
Whether the cut-off date fixed by the Government for the purpose 
of entitlement to pension of the erstwhile Transport Department 
employees, who were later on absorbed in the Transport Corporations 
is constitutionally valid? 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Cut-off date fixed by the Government for the purpose 
D 
E 
of conferring the pensionary benefits cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. 
The date of permanent absorption in the service of the Transport p 
Corporation is a material aspect in fixing· the cut-off date for 
pensionary entitlement. This criterion cannot be said to be irrational 
or irrelevant. [1113-E, 1113-G-H] 
2. The Government Order (G.O.) gives an unequivocal indication 
that the Government itself regarded that the process of absorption was G 
not completed in 1975 and that a final exercise of calling for and 
accepting the offers should be gone through, maybe, in view of the 
change of criteria in regard to the terminal benefits. Hence, the finding 
of the High Court that the fixation of cut-off date as 1.5.1975 was 
arbitrary cannot be assailed. (1114-C-D, 1115-AJ 
H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The fact that the G.O. pursuant to which fresh options were 
called for was struck down by the High Court does not lead to the 
inference that such options must be regarded as non est in the eye of 
law. inference should be that the process of absorption was not 
regarded as complete by the Government as well as the Corporation. 
B The invalidation of the G.O. by the High Court does not in any way 
displace this factual inference. In fact, the validity of cut-off date was 
apparently no adjudicated upon in the writ petition. The options 
exercised pursuant to the struck down G.O. have for all practical 
purposes regained their efficacy. [1115-B-E

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