ORDER : N. Kirubakaran, J. The petitioner was informed by the communication dated July 11, 2001 of the first respondent, by which the Corporation deducted the Pension drawn from the previous employer, from the total pension calculated for the total service and fixed the pension at Rs. 286/- per month. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the defence service in the year 1960 and was discharged from military service in December 1976 after completion of 16 years of service. Subsequently, he was appointed as Security Supervisor in Pallavan Transport Corporation in December 1976 itself and he was transferred to various Transport Corporations and finally to M.G.R Transport Corporation. After completing 22 years of service, he retired from service in April 1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. From September 1, 1998 onwards, pension scheme was introduced for transport employees and under the said scheme, the petitioner is eligible for receiving pension on his retirement in the year 1999. The petitioner opted for pension scheme. Under the impugned communication, his pension was fixed at Rs. 286/- per month stating that as per pension rules, the pension drawn from the previous employer had to be deducted from the total pension calculated for total service. Aggrieved by that only, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an ex-servicemen, who put in 1014 years of service in military and he was drawing pension from the Government of India. Subsequent to the military service, he joined the first respondent Transport Corporation and attained superannuation in April 1999 after completing 22 1/2 years of service and the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits under the first respondent's pension scheme also. The petitioner questioned the procedure adopted by the respondent stating that both services rendered by him are different and the pensionary benefits for different services, should not be taken together and his pensionary benefit of the military service cannot be deducted. 5. Mr. S.G. Jeremiah learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both services are covered by different service rules and the petitioner is entitled for pension for both services which are independent and it cannot be counted together. He relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. 5. Mr. S.G. Jeremiah learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both services are covered by different service rules and the petitioner is entitled for pension for both services which are independent and it cannot be counted together. He relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tamil Nadu Government Transport, Retired Employees Welfare Association (formerly known as Tamil Nadu Transport Employees Urimagal Sangam) and Others, (2008) 1 MLJ 817 . In that case the employees were formerly in Government service and after formation of transport Corporation, they opted for the same. When the pension was calculated, certain benefits were limited to a class of employees by prescribing cut of date and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court held as follows at p. 824: 14. There is difference of pension as is paid by the State Government and the pension as is paid by the transport Corporation. So far as the State Government is concerned its expenditure towards pension is made from the consolidated fund of the State Government, but so far as the Transport. Corporation is concerned, pension is not paid from the consolidated fund of the State or from the State Government or any other local authority, but is paid from the funds generated by the corporation. A separate budgetary provision is made by the State Government every year to meet the expenditure towards payment of pension to the State Government pensioners. On the other hand, no such budgetary provision is made by State Government for payment of pension is made by State Government for payment of pension to the employees of the transport corporation, which is generated from the earning of the employees' contribution of contributory provident fund under the Pension Fund Trust formed for the purpose of the transport corporation. While the State is bound to pay the pension to the Government employees, it has no liability nor required to give any guarantee to the corporation to pay pension to employees of the corporation. 6. Similarly, in this case also two different services were put by the petitioner and they were governed by two different service rules and pensionary rules. When the employee has put in service in each of the organisation, he is eligible to get the pensionary benefits as per respective rules. 6. Similarly, in this case also two different services were put by the petitioner and they were governed by two different service rules and pensionary rules. When the employee has put in service in each of the organisation, he is eligible to get the pensionary benefits as per respective rules. When the petitioner put in two different services he is eligible for pension for the both services, and the respondent has got no right to deduct the pension which the petitioner is entitled to get from military services and in view of categorical dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner is entitled to pension both for military service and also for service rendered under the respondents. 7. Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that under Rule 14(b) of Employees Provident Fund and Pension Rules previous service pension has to be deducted from the gross pension and in this case also the similarly, method was followed: As per the Rule 14(b) of the said rules, the basic Pension drawn by the member under any other scheme like Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Employees Pensioners and Military Pensioners and Military Pensioners has to be deducted from the pension calculated including the services under any other scheme restricted to 30 years and the balance has to be paid as pension. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent stated submitted that new Rule 14(c) has been introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 103 dated August 26, 2003 para (5) of the Government order reads as follows: 5. In the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and in compliance of the orders of High Court, Chennai, consider the requests of the Writ petitioners on merits and in accordance with law and approve that the provisions under Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees pension Fund Rules to be allowed to stand and the following clause may be incorporated and inserted as Rule 14(c) in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust Rules: Rule 14(c): "Provided that the provisions of Rule 14(b) shall not apply in the cases of members who are Ex-Servicemen and drawing pension for the Military service" subject to the conditions that such option as provided in the Rule 16 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules be obtained from these pensioners. Viz to opt either: (a) To continue to draw the military pension (or) retain gratuity received on discharge from military service, in which case his former military service shall not count as qualifying service; or (b) To cease to draw his pension and refund (i) The pension already drawn and; (ii) The value received for the commutation of part of military pension; and (iii) The amount of DCRG including Service Gratuity if any and count the previous military service as qualifying service as provided in the Rule 16 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rule. 9. In view of the above said new Rule 14(c) and in view of the judgment of this Court Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Government Transport Retired Employees Welfare Association (supra), the respondent cannot deduct the petitioner's pension drawn from the previous employer. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed not to deduct the pensionary benefits available to the petitioner for his military service and to pay the pension as per pensioner's services in the respondents corporation. There is no order as to costs.