Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letter No. 6569/Xa;t {jpak;/j/m/ngh/f/fh";rp/04 dated 111. 2004 of the 2nd Respondent. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner had worked as driver in the Respondents Corporation had applied Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Petitioners application was accepted by the Respondents Corporation vide letter No.3344/P6/TNSTC/(VPM DIV.III)/2000 dated 27.08.2003, since he had completed 20 years of qualifying service from the date of appointment (Daily paid) 111. 1980 to the date of retirement 38. 2003. (ii) Though Petitioners Voluntary Retirement application was initially accepted, by the impugned letter dated 111. 2004 Respondents informed the Petitioner that Petitioner does not possess the actual qualifying service of 25 years and that he is not eligible for Voluntary Retirement Pension. (iii) Petitioner challenges the impugned letter on the ground that when the Respondents had issued Proceedings dated 27.08.2003, Respondents cannot take a different decision denying pensionary benefits at a later stage. According to the Petitioner, Respondents ought to have condoned the shortage of service to complete minimum period of 20 years and the Respondents ought to have granted pension on the ground of equity and good conscience. 3. Resisting the Petition, Respondents have filed counter stating that Petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service and that his actual qualifying service comes to 19 years, 10 months and 11 days and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to pension. 4. Heard both sides. 5. An employee is eligible for Voluntary Retirement pension subject to the fulfillment of rule 16(a)(ii) of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pensioner rules. As per the rule, employee would be eligible for Voluntary Retirement pension, if he has rendered qualifying service of 20 years and attained the age of 50 years. 6. Petitioners application for VRS was accepted by the Respondents Corporation by letter dated 28. 2003 and that he had completed 20 years of qualifying service from the date of appointment (Daily paid) 111. 1980 to the date of retirement 31.08.2003. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- 7. 6. Petitioners application for VRS was accepted by the Respondents Corporation by letter dated 28. 2003 and that he had completed 20 years of qualifying service from the date of appointment (Daily paid) 111. 1980 to the date of retirement 31.08.2003. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- 7. Later, Respondents have informed the Petitioner stating that service rendered by the Petitioner on daily wage basis i.e. 2 years, 1 month and 3 days cannot be taken into account as qualifying service and after deducting the non-qualifying service, actual qualifying service comes to 19 years 10 months and 11 days and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for Voluntary Retirement pension. 8. Admittedly, earlier Petitioner worked on daily wage basis for a period of 2 years, 1 month and 3 days. Petitioner has rendered total service of 21 years 11 months and 14 days. After deducting the non-qualifying service of 2 years, 1 month and 3 days, the actual qualifying service comes to 19 years, 10 months and 11 days. 9. As per the decision in 2005 (2) TLNJ 290 [N.Venkataramani v. Indian Bank, rep. by its Chairperson and Managing Director, Central Office, Chennai-1 and others], employee opted to go for VRS as per regulation 28, after completing 14 years, 9 months and 17 days and employee claim for pension was disputed on the ground that he had not completed minimum period of service of 15 years. Observing that Courts are to adopt liberal interpretation of regulation, First Bench of this Court has held that last spell of service can be treated as one full year and the employee was entitled to get pension. In the said decision, adopting liberal interpretation, First Bench of this Court has held as under:- "16. In the Judgment reported in 1985 (4) SCC 325 [Workman of Messers Binny Ltd v. Management of Binny Ltd and another], the Honble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provision of payment of Bonus Act, has held as under in para 9 "9. ...... It is trite law that in matters of welfare legislation, especially involving labour, the terms of contract and the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of weak....." 20. ...... It is trite law that in matters of welfare legislation, especially involving labour, the terms of contract and the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of weak....." 20. In the Judgment reported in "1992 Supp (I) SCC 664 equivalent to " AIR 1992 SC 767 (All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others), the Honble Supreme Court has held that - "The concept of pension is now well known, that it is not a charity and that it is in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee". 21. Further, while dealing with the claim for pension based on the interpretation of the Regulations, it will have to be held that the construction of the Regulation which would achieve the object of the Regulation should be made. In other words, it is well known canon of construction that an interpretation of a provision in respect of a beneficial piece of legislation one should always construe it in a manner that would fulfil the object and purport of the legislation. ....." 10. In the present case, Petitioners actual qualifying service comes to 19 years, 10 months and 11 days. Applying the ratio of decision of the First Bench, the last spell of service can be treated as one full year and the Petitioner is entitled to get pension. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to process the pension papers and disburse the arrears of pension and the pension amount payable to the Petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.