Does Rule 32-A of the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules, which permits transfer of provident fund accumulation on entry into Government service, confer any entitlement to pension?

The instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.33291/A1/2021-4, dated 15.12.2021, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant pension and General Provident Fund to the petitioner, who retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2019, as approved by the first respondent in G.O.(Rt) No.1405, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 31.12.2019.

The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition, are that the petitioner joined the service of IRT Perundurai Medical College and Hospital on 14.07.1988 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Dean on 20.05.2015. Thereafter, he retired from service on the afternoon of 31.12.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation. In the interregnum, owing to the weak financial position of the State Transport Undertaking, the Government of Tamil Nadu took over the administration of the College during the year 2018-2019 and renamed it as the Government Erode Medical College and Hospital.

The main contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, pursuant to the takeover by the Government, the petitioner became a Government servant and, therefore, is entitled to pension and GPF benefits under Rule 32-A of the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the GPF Rules”). It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order of rejection has failed to take into consideration Rule 32-A of the GPF Rules, which provides for the procedure for transfer of the EPF accumulation of an employee from a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government or an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860). According to the learned Senior Counsel, upon the takeover of the petitioner’s service by the Government, the GPF accumulation available with the organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act could be transferred to the petitioner’s credit. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and would submit that the petitioner was not appointed to a pensionable service and that the College in which he was appointed was managed under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The pay of the petitioner was protected in accordance with the existing Service Rules and he was not a Government servant at the time of his superannuation. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that, though Rule 32-A of the GPF Rules provides for transfer of provident fund accumulation, it does not confer any right to pension. He would further submit that the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs.35,86,288/- towards death-cum-retirement gratuity and earned leave benefits. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

Though this Court exercises judicial review over the decision- making process of the authorities, such jurisdiction has its own limitations. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to pension.

In support of his claim, the petitioner relies upon the Government Orders issued for taking over the IRT Perundurai Medical College and Hospital, viz., G.O.Ms.No.308, Transport (B1) Department, dated 24.10.2018, G.O.Ms.No.57, Health and Family Welfare (MCA-2) Department, dated 28.02.2019, and G.O.Ms.No.321, Health and Family Welfare (E2) Department, dated 26.07.2019. Though the Government, under G.O.Ms.No.308, took over the control of the IRT Perundurai Medical College and Hospital, the said Government Order deals with sharing of seats in medical admissions. G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 28.02.2019, deals with the takeover of movable and immovable properties, whereas G.O.Ms.No.321, dated 26.07.2019, deals with sanction of funds towards salary and non-salary expenditure. On a careful reading of the aforesaid three Government Orders, this Court is unable to find any provision providing for absorption of the employees who had served in the erstwhile Medical College.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2019. As per the counter-affidavit, G.O.Ms.No.70, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 26.02.2020, provided for the absorption of 317 posts from the Transport Department into the Health Department. Therefore, on the date of his retirement, the petitioner continued to be an employee of the Transport Department and had not been absorbed as an employee of the Health Department.

Furthermore, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, Rule 32-A of the GPF Rules merely provides for transfer of provident fund accumulation when an employee enters Government service and does not deal with entitlement to pension. Under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, pension is admissible only to persons who are appointed to a pensionable establishment. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was not a member of a pensionable establishment either at the time of his appointment or at the time of his retirement. Further, there was no Government Order providing for the absorption of the employees of the erstwhile administration, as on the date of the petitioner’s retirement. Therefore, within the limited contours of judicial review, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference.

In such view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

After pronouncement of the order, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13785 of 2022. However, the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The material distinction is that, in the said case, the petitioner therein continues to be in service, whereas the writ petitioner herein, viz., Dr. M. Rajendran, had retired from service even prior to the order of absorption passed by the Government. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.