Judgment :- In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant family pension under the existing Pension Rules to the families of the members of the petitioner association who were Government employees, who had been permanently absorbed in various Transport Corporations in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as follows: Prior to 1972, Public Transport Service was conducted by the State Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Then, the Government constituted Transport Corporation for each district and the employees working in the Transport Department were required to exercise their option to work either in the Transport Department or to get absorbed in the newly created Corporations. When the option was called for, the employees were assured of all benefits including terminal benefits like family pension, which they were enjoying in Government service. They were also informed that, had they put in more than ten years of service in the Transport Department, they would be entitled to pensionary benefits for the services rendered under the Government. The employees opted to be absorbed in the Corporation, agreed to abide by the aforesaid terms under which they are entitled to all terminal benefits including family pension. However, the respondents/Government subsequently backtracked in the year 1980 stating that, the pensionary benefits that the employees are entitled to, had they put in ten years of service in the Government will not be paid to them immediately, but would be paid to them only at the time of retirement from the service of the Corporation. The aforesaid Government Order was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition Nos. 733 of 1980 and 5777 of 1982 before this Court, which eventually came to be allowed and direction was issued to the Government to act on the basis of the original assuranceThereafter, the Government issued, separate orders in respect of different Corporations. In regard to employees of the Transport Corporation, Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1028 dated September 23, 1985, declaring that the employees will be entitled to pension and gratuity alone for the services rendered under the Government. In respect of another Corporation, namely, Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, Government issued G.O.Ms. In regard to employees of the Transport Corporation, Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1028 dated September 23, 1985, declaring that the employees will be entitled to pension and gratuity alone for the services rendered under the Government. In respect of another Corporation, namely, Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 1921 dated November 8, 1983 on similar lines, namely, confining the terminal benefits only to pension and gratuity, which gave raise to three writ petitions before this Court, which were later transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal as per judgment dated June 26, 1992, allowed the petitions directing the Government to reconsider the matter afresh. The impugned Government Order was also quashed. In appeal, the Apex Court in a decision reported in The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. V. S. Balakrishnan and others, 1995-I-LLJ-1035 upheld the G.O. excepting the clause relating to family pension. The observation of the Supreme Court so far as it is relevant to the present context is as follows at p. 1039 of LLJ :- "We may now examine the terminal benefits offered in G.O. 1921. We have already enumerated in detail the said benefits in earlier part of the judgment. We are of the view that except the provisions regarding family pension and application of Future Liberalised Pension Rules (item 3(c) and 3(f) of G.O. 1921) all other provisions of the said G.O. are reasonable and no fault can be found therewith. We are of the view that once an optee for permanent absorption in the Federation is entitled to pro rata pension in respect of the period of service rendered by him under the Government, he is also entitled to the benefit of family pension. ........" Applying the aforesaid dictum to the facts of the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are entitled to family pension. In this connection, it has to be noted that the respondent Government made representation to the employees to the effect that, the Government Servants who opt to be absorbed in the Transport Corporation would, on such absorption be entitled to pay in Public Sector Undertakings besides the terminal benefits in the form of pension, gratuity, etc., earned by them in Government Service prior to such absorption, vide G.O.Ms. No. 378 (Finance) dated April 13, 1975. No. 378 (Finance) dated April 13, 1975. However, the Government Order also contains a provision that, since the optees will cease to be Government servants, the Government's liability for family pension will cease. The said order, in this Court's (sic) considered opinion can only be understood in the sense that, the optees like the members of the petitioner Association would be entitled to the terminal benefits including family pension, in respect of the services rendered by them in the Government. But, the respondents have construed the aforesaid G.O. to deny the family pension to persons like the members of the petitioner association, even in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government. The said action of the respondents in denying the family pension to persons like the members of the petitioner association even in respect of the services put in by them under the Government, would be contrary to the scheme and purport of the various Government Orders, including the one under G.O.Ms. No. 378 (Finance) dated April 19, 1975 and opposed to the principle of promissory estoppel. That apart, this Court is told, there is no pension scheme in Transport Corporation at that point of time, in which the members of the petitioner-association were employed. It is also not disputed that the members of the petitioner's association are also not receiving any other family pension from their employers namely, various Transport Corporations. In the aforesaid view, in my considered opinion, the members of the petitioner association are entitled to the family pension from the Government in respect of the services put in by them under the GovernmentOf course, learned Government Pleader relying on Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules would contend that, the members of the petitioner association are not entitled to the family pension as prayed for. On a perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, I am afraid that it will not apply to the facts of the present case. First of all, the rule in question came into force only with effect from January 1, 1979, whereas, the employees were absorbed in various Corporations way back in 1974-75. The rule in so far as it deprives the employees of their right to family pension, cannot be construed to give retrospective effect unless such retrospective effect is expressly provided. First of all, the rule in question came into force only with effect from January 1, 1979, whereas, the employees were absorbed in various Corporations way back in 1974-75. The rule in so far as it deprives the employees of their right to family pension, cannot be construed to give retrospective effect unless such retrospective effect is expressly provided. Secondly, Rule 34 of the Rules refers to transfer of individuals in public interest from Government to Corporation, and the Rule does, not appear to cover a case similar to the one in question, where the Government set up a Corporation and divested itself of the obligation to run it, as part of the Department. Thirdly, as per Rule 34, employees who are transferred from Government to Corporations, are entitled to terminal benefits only after they retire from the Corporation, but so far as the employees of the petitioner Association are concerned, they were found entitled to the terminal benefits immediately upon absorption in the Corporation, which shows that the principle underlying Rule 34 would not apply to the case on hand. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this writ petition and direct the first respondent Government to grant family pension under the existing Pension Rules to the families of the members of the petitioner Association, who were Government employees and who had been permanently absorbed in the various Transport Corporations in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government, as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ Petition allowed. No costs.