Supreme Court of IndiaThe Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs M. Ananchu Asari & Ors on 1 February, 2005Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1062, 2005 (2) SCC 332, 2005 AIR SCW 646, 2005 LAB. I. C. 862, 2005 (2) SRJ 543, 2005 (2) ALL CJ 994, (2005) 2 JT 400 (SC), 2005 ALL CJ 2 994, 2005 (2) SLT 88, 2005 (1) SCALE 659, 2005 SCC (L&S) 258, (2005) 1 UC 495, (2005) 2 SCT 97, (2005) 104 FACLR 890, (2005) 1 LAB LN 1104, (2005) 2 SCJ 1, (2005) 2 SERVLR 846, (2005) 2 SUPREME 80, (2005) 1 SCALE 659, (2005) 2 ESC 183Author:P. Venkatarama ReddiBench:P. Venkatarama Reddi,P.P. NaolekarCASE NO.:
Review Petition (civil)  648-649 of 2004

PETITIONER:
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.		

RESPONDENT:
M. Ananchu Asari  & Ors.					

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2005

BENCH:
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT:J U D G M E N T
REVIEW PETITION(C)NOS.648-649 OF 2004
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1444-1445 OF 1999

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.In order to extend the benefit of pension to the 
Government servants absorbed in the State Road Transport 
Corporations, the crucial date for granting/calculating 
pensionary benefits was specified as 01.05.1975/15.9.1975. 
The entitlement to pensionary benefits arises if they had 
completed ten years of qualifying government service as on 
that day. The validity of fixation of cut-off date as 1.5.1975/ 
15.9.1975 came up for consideration before the High Court 
of Madras. The High Court declared the fixation of the date 
aforementioned as illegal and arbitrary and directed the 
Government to fix the cut-off date afresh, while indicating 
that the date on which the options were finally called for i.e. 
20.6.1982 would be an appropriate date for determining the 
eligibility for pension. On appeal to this Court, the Judgment 
of the High Court was substantially confirmed. This Court 
negatived the plea of the appellants that the process of 
absorption took place in the year 1975 itself. This Court, 
instead of remitting the matter again to the Government for 
fixing the appropriate cut-off date and to avoid further 
delay, directed that the cut-off date shall be fixed as 
1.4.1982 in modification of what was prescribed in G.O.No. 
1028 dated 23.9.1985 etc., and G.O.No. 250 dated 
18.01.1996. This Court held thus:"Hence, the fixation of 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 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 writ petition namely 
W.P.No. 7012 of 1988. 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."Now the Government of Tamil nadu has filed this 
review/clarification petition. The contention in the said 
petition is as follows:"It is submitted that the respondent-employees 
whoever have retired should get the pension 
arrears only from 1.1.1988 by which this Hon'ble 
Court has passed an order that the cut-off date is 
1.4.1982 and the pensionary benefit from 
1.1.1988 for the retired employees. The 
petitioner most respectfully accepts the said 
judgment, but for the remaining employees 
whoever have retired on or after 1.1.1988 should 
be eligible for pension on the date of actual 
retirement on attaining the age of 
superannuation."Certain contentions are raised on the merits, 
especially, in regard to the conclusion of this Court that the 
process of absorption did not 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 Corporation employees 
who were erstwhile Government servants 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 G.Os. applicable to them. It is the contention of 
the learned counsel for the  respondent-employees that the 
G.Os. issued by the Government 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. Hence the Review Petitions are dismissed 
with the above observations. Time for implementation of 
judgment is extended by four months from today.
I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 for impleadment are unnecessary.  
The same are dismissed.