Holding

The State Government's view is correct; the Tribunal's decision is set aside and the respondents are not entitled to pension.

Summary

The respondents, former employees of the Tamil Nadu Transport Department, claimed pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules after being absorbed into state transport corporations. They argued that Government Order (G.O.) No.378 (1975) superseded G.O. No.212 (1974) and that they were entitled to pension despite having opted for the Provident Fund scheme. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal held in their favour, interpreting G.O. No.378 as granting pension rights. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the language of the two G.O.s, the requirement of ten years qualifying service, and the effect of the employees' option to remain under the Provident Fund scheme. The Court concluded that G.O. No.378 did not override G.O. No.212, that pension entitlement is linked to government service of at least ten years, and that the respondents had chosen the Provident Fund scheme, thereby forfeiting pension rights. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether G.O. No.378 (1975) supersedes G.O. No.212 (1974) with respect to pension entitlement of former Transport Department employees.
Whether employees who exercised the option to remain under the Provident Fund scheme are entitled to pension under the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules.
Whether the qualifying period of ten years of government service is a prerequisite for pension eligibility in the present facts.

Subjects

pensiongovernment servicetransport departmentcorporate absorptionG.O. 212G.O. 378qualifying serviceprovident fund schemeterminal benefitscivil appealservice law

Judgment

A THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
{
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS
~:

N. GOVINDAN ACHARY AND ORS.

JANUARY 31, 2006
B
[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dated 28-3-1974, which has not been superseded by G.O.Ms No. 378 dated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.

Respondents were employees of the erstwhile transport department in
E 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
Tribunal seeking pension for services rendered by them in the transport
G 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
Administrative Tribunal held that respondents were entitled to pension in B
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
D
the qualifying service is to years in terms of the Pension Rules. If the
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
be the intention. G.O. MS No. to28 dated 23-9-1985 is also relevant in this
context. 1908-A, Bf H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 410-429 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.1996 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 419, 420, 421 and 430/91 and O.A. Nos.
768 and 767/90, IOI. 102, 574, 633, 1477/89, 2690/91, 2057/91, 12/90, 645/90,
1989/89, 1541, 1544/90, 28/9 i and 1543/90.
B
WITH

C.A. Nos. 381-82 of2002.
>
V.R. Reddy, R. Ayyam Perumal and Sunil Murakka for the Appellant.
...
c Abhay Chandrakant Mahimkar, Ms. V. Mohana, S. Gurukrishna Kumar
and S.R. Setia for the Respondents.

Jitendra Sharma, and P. Gaur forintervenors.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 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.0.Ms. No.378 issued by the Finance Department of the appellant-
E State dated 18.4.1975 read with G.O.Ms. No.378, Transport Department, dated
23.9.1985.

Background facts as highlighted by the appellants are essentially as
follows:

The respondents were employees of the erstwhile Transport Department
•
F
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
G 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
H 18.4.1975 was denied to the respondents. Hence, they filed applications before
COMMR. AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. TPT. DEPT .. FORT ST. GEORGE,. N. GOVINDAN ACllARY [PASAYAT: l] 901

the Tribunal with a prayer that direction be given to the present appellants A
to pay the eligible pension to the applicants before the Tribunal for services
rendered by them in the transport department in terms of G.0.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 I0 years. Their services
were counted from the date of permanent absorption in the Transport B
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.0.Ms. 378. The Government referred to G.O. No.212 to
deny the benefit. It was pointed out by the present appellants that the C
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 optio.ns either to
remain in the existing scheme or to come under pension scheme. D

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 E
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.0.No.212 was issued on 23.9.1974. When the
G.O. was issued certain doubts were entertained as to under which scheme p
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. G
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] IO 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 H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006] I S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c writ petition, namely WP N0.7012of1988. 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."
D
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
E 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
F Corporation employees who were erstwhile government servan(s
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
G 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 111 these appeals is that the aforesaid two
H decisions did not rdate to the facts of the present case. On the contrary,
COMMR AND SECRETARYTDGD\'T TPT. DEPT. FORT ST GEORGE•·. N GOVINDAN ACHARY [PASAYAT. JJ 9Q3

learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue is no longer res A
integra in view of the aforesaid two judgments.

As noted above, the two relevant GOs are Nos.212 and 378, so far as
relevant, they read as follows:

"GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL B
(ABSTRACT)

Pension: Benefits of Madras Liberalised Pension Rules-Extension to
employees of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department-orders-issued,

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT c
G.O.Ms. No.212 DATED
28th MARCH 1974

G.O. Ms. No.537, Transport Department,
D
dated 3.7.1972
ORDER
In the G.O. read above the Government has approved the Special
Rules for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Sub-
Ordinate Service. According to Rule 12 of the said Rules, all the E
members of the services are eligible for the benefits of gratuity and
they will be governed by the Special Gratuity Rules and will not be
entitled to pension or provident Fund benefits as applicable to the
regular government servants. The Government have since decided to
extent the benefits of the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 to
the workers of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in lieu of F
Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Retiring.
In valid and compassionate Gratuity (Non-Pensionable Establishment)
Rules.

02. The Government accordingly direct that the workers of the Tamil G
Nadu State Transport Department be entitled to the Pension and
Provident Fund and the Family Pension benefits as applicable to the
regular Government servants under the Madras Liberalised Pension
Rules, 1960 and the Madras Government Servants Family Pension
Rules, 1964.
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A 03. This order shall take effect from 11.1.1974. The workers shall be
given the option either to remain in the existing system or to be
governed by the Madras Liberalised P{nsion Scheme. The
implementation of the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 and the
fvladras Government Servants Family Pension Rules, 1964 shall be
effected subjected to the following conditions:-
B
(a) All existing employees borne on the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Department Su.bordinate Service who opt for the Madras Liberalised
Pension benefits shall be governed by the Madras Liberalised Pension
Rules, 1960. For this purpose, their entire service in the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Service will be
c reckoned towards pension, gratuity and all other benefits for which
they would have been entitled to under the rules. They will not be
eligible to get any Government contribution to Employees Provident
Fund, 1952 now converted as Tamil Nadu Government Industrial
Employees Provident Fund, 1969 and the amount of such contribution
D already credit to the account of the employees will be resumed and
credited back to the Government. The contribution made towards the
Employees Provident Fund, so far will be deemed as having been
contributed to General Provident Fund (Madras). They will have to
continue to contribute to the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu).

E xxx xx xx xx xx

06. However, to ensure that all existing employees are given the
option to continue to be governed by the existing terms and conditions,
if for some reasons, they choose to do so, Government direct that all
the employees covered in paragraph 3 (a) (c) of this order will have
F the option to request to be governed by the existing terms and
conditions of service. This option will be exercised on or before
30.6.1974. Those who do not exercise any option shall automatically
come under the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960. Option cannot be
exercised after 3u.6. l 974 and option once exercised is final.
G
xxx xxxx xx xx

(DY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

M.S. RAM
H
COMMR. ANOSECRETARYTOGOVT. TPT. DEPT .. FORT ST. GEORGE•·. N. GOVINDAN ACHARY \PASAYAT. JJ 905

SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT A
)
xxx xxxx xx xx

"GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
(ABSTRAcn.
B
FUNDAMENTAL RULES PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF
GOVERNMENT SERVANT UNDER STATE OWNED CORPORATIONS/
BOARDS/UNDERTAKINGS TERMINAL BENEFITS ORDERS ISSUED.

FINANCE (FR.II) DEPARTMENT

G.O.MS.No.378 Dated 18.4.1975.
c
01. G.O.Ms. No.1072, Finance, Dated 5.9.1964.

02. G.0.Ms. No.731, Industries (Special)

Dated, 21.5.1974.
D
ORDER

In the G.O. second read above certain terminal benefits relating to
Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund, Earned Leave, Family Pension, etc.,
were granted to Government servants permanently absorbed in the
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited. The Government E
have decided to grant similar benefits to Government servant
permanently absorbed under all other public undertakings unde1 the
Stale Government and pass the following orders in regard to the
issues relating to liabilities of Pension and Gratuity, Provident Fund,
Earned Leave, Family Pension commutation of leave to those opted F
to the service of the State owned Corporations/Boards/Undertakings.

Pension and Gratuity:

In addition to py in the public undertaking an optee will be
entitled to pension/gratuity earned by him in Government service prior
to the such absorption. If the qualifying service under Government is G
less than ten years, Gratuity and Death cum Retirement Gratuity alone ·
will be payable. They are permitted to draw their pension/gratuity
immediately on absorption in the Corporation.

Provident Fund
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A The amount of subscription together with interest thereon,
standing in the Provident Fund Account of a Government Servant (
opting for service in the Public Sector Undertaking may, if he so
desires, be transferred to his new Provident Fund Account under the
undertaking provided the undertaking also agrees to such a transfer.
If, however, the Public Undertaking does not operate a Provident
B Fund, the amount in question should be refunded to the subscriber.
An officer cover~d by a Government contributory Provident Fund will
also be allowed, if he so desires, to carry forward the corpus of the
amount including Government contributions to his new Provident
Fund Account under the Public Sector undertaking. Once such a
c transfer of Provident Fund balance has taken place, the officer will be
governed by the Provident Fund rules of the undertaking. As per
General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules, the Provident Fund
accumulation shall continue to carry interest at the normal rate till
final payment or transfer of provident fund accumulation.

D xxx xxx xxx
Family Pension:

Since the optee for permanent absorption in the Public Sector
undertaking will cease to be a Government Servant, the Governments
liability for family pension will cease.
E
Commutation of Pension:

(i) Every Government servant will exercise an option within six months
of his absorption for either of the alternatives indicated below:-
F (a) Receiving the monthly pension and Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity already worked out under the usual Government
arrangements.

OR

(b) Receiving the gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of
G pension worked out with reference to commutation tables
obtaining on the date from which pension will be admissible
and payab1e under the option orders.

-
(ii) Any further liberalization of pension rules decided upon by
H Government after the permanent absorption of a Government
COMMR. AND SECRETARYTOC.0\'T TPT. Off[. FORT ST GEORGE" N. GOVIND,\N ACHARY [PASAYAT, J.J 907

servant in a public enterprise would not be extended to them. A
)
(iii) In cases where an officer at the time of absorption has less than
l 0 years service and is not entitled to pension the question of
proportionate pension wilt not. arise, as he will be eligible only to
the proportionate service gratuity in lieu of pension and Death-
cum-Retirement Gratuity based on length of service. B
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

S.GUHAN

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT." c
For resolving of the controversy, GO. I 028 may also be referred to. On
a reading of the GOs the crucial expressions appear to be pension/gratuity
"earned by him" (underlined for emphasis) and the period stipulated is 10
)
years. This is indicative of the fact that the position is relatable to government
service and the qualifying service is l 0 years in terms of tlw Pension Rules. D
If the 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. It is to be further noted that G.O. No.212 refers to G.O. 537. From
the factual details available it appears that the respondents preferred to
remain under the Provident Fund Scheme. Jn the affidavits filed by the E
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 the option was exercised.

Learned counsel for the respondents has highlighted about the beneficial
nature of the provisions. It is to be noted that the Tribunal proceeded on the F
basis as if G.0.378 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
G.0.378 was intended to supersede G.0.212, the least that could have been
done is to refer to G.0.212 which is admittedly not the position. G.0.378
nowhere refers to any exercise of option under G.0.212. It is highlighted by
learned counsel for the respondents and the employees who have intervened G
in the proceedings that when the Transport Corporations were formed option
was asked for. It is too well known that in the Corporation no pensionary
benefits were there. So the question of asking for any option did not arise
and in that background the employees had opted for provident fund scheme.
After the cut off date i.e. t .4. t 982 the basis of option changed and the earlier H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200611 S.C.R.

A basis was also changed.
The. controversy as noted above lies within a narrow compass i.e.
whether G.O. No.378 in effect superseded G.O. No.212. Bare reading of the
two GOs do not certainly indicate that to be the position. Additionally, if the
stand of the respondents is acctpted the expression "earned by him" becomes
B superfluous. That can never be the intention. It would be also relevant to
quote a portion of GO MS No.1028 dated 23.9.1985 which has also relevance.

"GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

ABSTRACT
c STATE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS PERMANENT
ABSORPTION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT UNDER STATE OWNED
CORPORATIONS/BOARDS/ UNDERTAKINGS TERMINAL BENEFITS
ORDERS ISSUED.
<
D TRANSPORT DEPARTMl:NI

G.O. MS. N0.1028
DATED 23.9.1985
KURODHANA
E PURATTAST-7

THIRUVALLUVARANDU:2016

READ ..
01. G.O. Ms. No.378, Finance (FR. 11) Department, dated 18.04.1975
F
02. G.O. Ms. No.284, Finance Department d~ted 31.3.1980.

0.3. From the Finance (Pen.) Department Lr. No. 74399/ Pen.183-8 dated
5.6.1985 addressed to the Accountant General Tamil Nadu.

G PENSION AND GRA TUTITY

In addition to pay in the Public Undertakings, an optee will be
entitled to pension/gratuity earned by him in government service prior
to such absorption as per Madras Liberalised Pension Rules 1960.
They are permitted to draw their pension/gratuity from the date of
H
1·
COMMR. AND SECRETARY TO GOVT TPT. DEPT. FORT ST GEORGE,. N. GOVIN DAN ACHARY [PASA VAT. J] 909

their permanent absorption in the Transport Corporations. The arrears A
) of monthly pension from the date of their permanent absorption till
date or the lumpsum amount based on the commuted value of pension
according to their option shall be paid immediately in respect of
retired/legal heirs of the deceased employees. Some of the retired
employees were sanctioned and paid pension only from the dates of
the actual retirement from the Transport Corporations on attaining the B
age of superannuation as per the orders issued in the G.O. second
read above. Jn respect of such cases the arrears of monthly pension
from the date of absorption to the date of retirement of lumpsum
amount based on the commuted value after adjusting the monthly
pension already received till date according to their option shall be C
paid to them. In respect of the employees who expired on or after their
permanent absorption the legal heirs would have been paid only
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. In such cases the lumpsum amount
based on the commuted value will be paid to the legal heirs, since the
payment of monthly pension/ family pension does not arise.
D
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE 11\' SERVICE IN STATE TRANSPORT
UNDERTAKINGS

If the err.ployees opt for lump sum amount based on the commuted
value of pension, the entire amount of pension and gratuity will be
paid to them in the form of National Savings Certificate. If they opt E
for monthly pension, the arrears of monthly pension from the date of
absorption to till date and gratuity will be paid to them in the form of
National Savings Certificate and the current monthly pension will be
paid every month:

04. The expenditure towards the settlement of Terminal Benefits referred F
to in para 3 above will be initially met by the respective Transport
Corporations and subsequently adjusted against the outstanding
Government loan to the Corporations.

06. FAM/lY PENSION
G
I. Since the optee for permanent absorption in the State Transport
Undertakings will cease to be a Government servant the Government
liability for Family Pension will cease.

The erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees
absorbed permanently in the State Transport Undertakings should be H
910 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R.

A allowed pension increase also in their pensio?l besides Dearness
Allowance, Additional Dearness Allowance as applicable from time to
•
time to Government pensioners who retired on that date as per the
orders issued in the letter third read above.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
B
A.K. VENKAT SUBRAMANIAN

COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT'

Therefore, the stand of the State Government appears to be correct. The
C view expressed by the Tribunal is indefensible and is set aside. The appeals
are allowed but with no orders as to costs.

vs. Appeals allowed.

f