Judgment :- 1. This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner monthly pension commuted value of pension along with arrears and interest for the delayed payment as per order in Ref. No. TNSTC.KD. I /AO7/PF3/PPO-577/2003, dated 19.02.2003 passed by the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Driver on 23.08.1976. According to him, due to continuous strain and stress involved in the work, he suffered heart alignment and he was forced to take treatment. Hence, he opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as VRS). According to the petitioner his VRS application was accepted by the respondent and he was permitted to retire from services on 27.09.1998. As per the terms of the settlement arrived at between the workman federation and the Management, the petitioner is entitled to get new scale of pension, being formulated and implemented for the employees of the State owned transport Corporation. It is not in dispute that under the VRS Scheme, an employee who attained the age of 50 years and also having a qualifying service of twenty years or more is entitled to the benefit of pension under the scheme and for which, the Government issued direction by letter dated 15.12.2000 to disburse monthly pension to the retired employees, who retire on or after 01.09.1998 by keeping/retaining the employers contribution to the Corporation. 3. Mr.V.Ajay Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired from service under the VRS Scheme with effect from 27.09.1998 and also eligible for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 under the P.F. Act. The first respondent, by an order dated 19.02.2003 sanctioned monthly pension at the rate of Rs.1,659/- per month with effect from 28.09.1998 and also directed to give DA and medical allowances to the petitioner on the said date and the pension was calculated for 25 years of his service from 01.10.1996 to 27.09.1998. However, the commutation of his monthly pension was reduced to Rs.1,099/- and the commutation amount was shown as Rs.83,556/-. The arrears of pension payable from 28.09.1998 to 31.01.2003 was calculated at Rs.88,195/- and the total gross amount was payable to him was at Rs.1,75,751/-. However, the commutation of his monthly pension was reduced to Rs.1,099/- and the commutation amount was shown as Rs.83,556/-. The arrears of pension payable from 28.09.1998 to 31.01.2003 was calculated at Rs.88,195/- and the total gross amount was payable to him was at Rs.1,75,751/-. The petitioner was issued with a cheque, dated 14.05.2003 for a sum of Rs.53,071/-payable as per order, dated 19.02.2003 towards pension under the VRS. However, when the cheque for the sum of Rs.53,071/-was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured and returned by the Bank along with a memo stating that the respondent herein had instructed to stop payment on the cheque. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent for getting regular pension, however, his request was not complied with. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even without issuing a memo and providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents instructed the Bank to stop payment for the cheque. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, as stated in the counter submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for the grant of pension, on account of insufficient qualifying service of twenty years for getting pension. According to the respondents, the period of service of the petitioner with the respondents is only 19 years and one day, hence, as per Form 16 a(ii) of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust Rules, the petitioner was not having the minimum qualifying service of twenty years for seeking pension. The petitioner was regularised only on 23.08.1978, though he joined the service on 01.10.1976, hence, the petitioner was not found eligible for pension under VRS Scheme. 5. As per the order passed by this Court, the second respondent was impleaded as a necessary party to the writ petition. The second respondent has stated in the Counter that the petitioner is not entitled to pension under VRS Scheme, on account of insufficient qualifying service. The Government have issued instructions under Lr.No.27762/D/99-7, dated 15.12.2000, directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust to disburse pension to the retired employees by retaining the employees contribution to the Corporation, as per the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.135, Transport Department, dated 15.12.2000 till TNSTCEPF trust becomes fully operational. The Government have issued instructions under Lr.No.27762/D/99-7, dated 15.12.2000, directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust to disburse pension to the retired employees by retaining the employees contribution to the Corporation, as per the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.135, Transport Department, dated 15.12.2000 till TNSTCEPF trust becomes fully operational. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a Driver under the first respondent from 23.08.1976 and voluntarily retired from on 27.09.1998. According to the second respondent the petitioner became a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme on 23.08.1978 and his services was regularised with effect from 23.08.1978. 6. Voluntarily Retirement Scheme to the employees was introduced and entrusted to the State Transport undertakings in the year 1987 by G.O.Ms.No.2010, Transport Department, dated 03.11.1987 and subsequently amended in the year 1980 by G.O., as per Government Letter No. 119/C2/88-13, Transport Department, dated 16.11.1990. As per the VRS Scheme introduced, an employee has to fulfill two conditions (1) completing 50 years of age and (2) qualifying of 20 years for getting the pension and other benefits under the VRS Scheme. The petitioner was permitted to retire from service under the scheme on his request with effect from 27.08.1998. The Government by Letter No.17785./D/03-2 Transport Department,dated 08.09.2003 have issued clarifications. According to the second respondent, as per Rule 16(a)(ii) of TNSTC (EP) Rules, the petitioner has not put on 20 years of qualifying service on the date of voluntarily retirement i.e., on 27.09.1998. In both the counters filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the date of retirement is stated as 27.09.1978. Considering the date of regularisation on 23.08.1978, the total service was computed as twenty years one month and four days, out of which one year one month and three days was deducted, on the ground of loss of pay as non-qualifying service and the net of non-qualifying services was computed as 19 years and one month. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioner herein was put in only 19 years and one month, less than the minimum required qualifying service of twenty years, hence, the petitioner was not eligible. 7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioner herein was put in only 19 years and one month, less than the minimum required qualifying service of twenty years, hence, the petitioner was not eligible. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the various judgment rendered by this Court and Apex court and contended that the respondent erroneously fixed the qualifying services from the date of regularisation on 23.08.1976 though the petitioner joined services on 23.08.1976 and his regularisation took effect from the date of joining. In this behalf, the Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules and the relevant Rules are extracted hereunder: "Rule 2... ...(o) "Contributory Service" means the period of "actual service" rendered by the member for which the contributions to the Fund have been received. (p) The Actual service as defined below shall be reckoned for calculating pensionable service: ... (i)In respect of employees taken over at the time of nationalisation during 1972, the date of the individual becoming regular employee with the taken over operators will be reckoned for calculation of pensionable service, provided they have been absorbed with continuity of service. Rule 2(p) (iii) reads as follows : In respect of all other employees, the date of regular employment or becoming the member of the Employees Provident Fund in the STU will be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable service." 8. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that there was loss of pay for a period of four months and three days, as stated by the respondents in their counter. According to the learned counsel, due to the ill-health and heart alignment, the petitioner has taken leave and hence, there was loss of pay, even if the period of loss of pay is deducted according to the petitioner, the qualifying services of the petitioner is twenty years. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.663 of 2007 by judgment dated 04.08.2008 held in paragraph 5 and 6 which reads as follows: "5. According to the respondent, the employees of the Corporation are entitled for pension being they are covered by the Employees Pension Fund Scheme framed by the respondent Corporation. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.663 of 2007 by judgment dated 04.08.2008 held in paragraph 5 and 6 which reads as follows: "5. According to the respondent, the employees of the Corporation are entitled for pension being they are covered by the Employees Pension Fund Scheme framed by the respondent Corporation. For calculating the qualifying service as per clause (iii) of Sub Rule (p) of 2, of the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund, the date of regular employment or the date on which, the concerned employee becoming a member of the Employees Provident Fund will be reckoned. 6. The respondent has become a member of the provident fund scheme on 01.10.1981 and had been retired on voluntary retirement on 30.06.2002. As such, the respondents qualifying service, relying on that line, comes to 19 years and 7 months as actual service and as per Rule 13 (e) of the said rules, fraction of service for six months or more has to be treated as one year. As such, the respondent had completed 20 years and thus, he is eligible for pension." 10. In a decision rendered in Indian Bank and Another vs. N.Venkatramani reported in 2007(3)LLJ 829, the respondent / employee opted for voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the appellant / bank, he was not paid pension, for the reason that he had not served for 15 years but only 14 years 9 months and 17 days, as per the old scheme. His writ petition, seeking the said relief was dismissed. But a Division Bench, on appeal allowed the writ appeal. Aggrieved by which, SLP was preferred, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that beneficial regulations, should be construed liberally. 11. Following the decision, it is held that the employee was entitled to the benefit under voluntary retirement scheme. In the instant case, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Corporation on 23.08.1976 and he was permitted to go on VRS Scheme on 27.09.1998. The aforesaid facts have been admitted by the respondents in their counter. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner joined services of the respondent / Corporation on 23.08.1976 and he was permitted to got on VRS Scheme on 27.09.1998. 12. The aforesaid facts have been admitted by the respondents in their counter. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner joined services of the respondent / Corporation on 23.08.1976 and he was permitted to got on VRS Scheme on 27.09.1998. 12. In the counter, the first respondent has extracted Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust Rules 16(a)(ii) which reads as follows: "16 MONTHLY MEMBERS PENSION a) A member shall be entitled to i)Superannuating Pension, if he has rendered a qualifying service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years or the retirement age that may be fixed by the employer. ii) Voluntary Retirement Pension, if he has rendered a qualifying service of 20 years or more and attained the age of 50 years." 13. As per Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, for the purpose of getting voluntary retirement pension, an employee could have rendered a qualifying service of twenty years or more and also attained the age of 50 years. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner herein was regularised only on 23.08.1978, on the said date, he had only twenty years, one month and four days of qualifying service and on account of loss of pay for one year one month and three days, after deducting the said period, qualifying service was only more than 19 years and not twenty years. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the qualifying service must be calculated from the date of his appointment, since the subsequent regularisation goes back to his original date of appointment in service, since there is no break in service. 15. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner joined the service on 23.08.1976 and was regularised on 23.08.1998 without any break in service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only considering the age of the petitioner and the qualifying service rendered by him more than 20 years, after deducting the period of loss of pay, the petitioner was permitted to get voluntary retirement (VRS) by the respondents. Only after making payments under the VRS Scheme, by way of cheque, the respondents turned round and took a different stand that he has shortage of qualifying services against law and principles of natural justice. 16. Only after making payments under the VRS Scheme, by way of cheque, the respondents turned round and took a different stand that he has shortage of qualifying services against law and principles of natural justice. 16. Only after making considering the date of joining, date of retirement and also the details of loss of pay of the petitioner, he was permitted to retire under VRS, on the ground that he had completed twenty years of service and also attained the age of fifty years. Based on the view taken by the respondents, a cheque for a sum of Rs.53,071/- was also issued under the Employees Pension Scheme to the petitioner. Hence, the respondents are estopped from raising the new plea, totally contradictory to the view already taken, while permitting the petitioner for getting voluntary retirement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, having considered the age and the qualifying service, the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily and cheque was also given for the amount payable under VRS Scheme. However, against law and principles of natural justice, the respondents instruct the Bank to stop payment for the cheque. It was further argued on the side of the petitioner that the respondents cannot take two different stands one for permitting the petitioner to get voluntary retirement under VRS and another for denying the benefits under the VRS. 17. The Honourable Supreme Court in S.K.Dua vs. State of Hariyana and another reported in 2008(3) SCC 44 has held that "Interest of delayed payment of retirement benefits legally sustainable in view of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which reads as follows: In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution." 18. A Division Bench of this Court in D.P.Selvaraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution." 18. A Division Bench of this Court in D.P.Selvaraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Finance (T&AI) Department, Chennai reported in 2009 (5) MLJ 1361 has held that when there has been a delay in disbursing the arrears of the retiral benefits, the Government servant is entitled to interest on the belated payment of retiral benefits, particularly when the delay is not caused due to the employee. 19. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.07.2008 in The Management of State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai – 2 vs. P. Rajarathinam held that for calculating the qualifying service as per Clause 3 of Sub Rule (p) 2 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employee’s Pension Fund, the date of regular employment or the date on which, the concerned employee becoming a member of the Employees Provident Fund will be reckoned. According to the petitioner, he had become a member of the provident fund scheme on 01.10.1981 and retired under VRS on 30.06.2002 and as such, the petitioner had qualifying service of more than 20 years. As per Rule 13(e) of the said Rules, fraction or service for six months or more has to be treated as one year and as such, the respondent therein was held to have completed 20 years of qualifying service and decided that he was eligible for pension. 20. As per Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Employees Provident Fund Trust Rules, a member shall be entitled to voluntarily retirement pension , only if he had rendered a qualifying services of twenty years or more and also on attaining the age of 50 years. 21. The first respondent, considering the date of appointment, regualrisation, date of voluntary retirement and other factors had permitted the petitioner to retire under VRS, which cannot be disputed. Therefore, after the retirement, the authority cannot go back and take a contrary version, which is detrimental to the interest of the employee as, it adversely affects his right and such a decision is also against principles of natural justice. Therefore, after the retirement, the authority cannot go back and take a contrary version, which is detrimental to the interest of the employee as, it adversely affects his right and such a decision is also against principles of natural justice. Had the petitioner was informed that his proposal for VRS was accepted only for a limited extent and he was not eligible to certain benefits under VRS due to insufficient qualifying service of twenty years, he would not have opted for voluntary retirement. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that for getting the benefits, one must be a member in the scheme for the employees pension fund. Admittedly, he was a member in the second respondent Trust. As the first respondent / management has permitted the petitioner to get voluntary retirement, both the respondents have been considered the same before permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily under the scheme. According to the petitioner, he had paid contribution for more than 20 years. Even otherwise, to meet the ends of justice, the amount, if any payable from the date of becoming the member in the scheme till the date of voluntary retirement, the contribution be calculated and the balance amount payable be deducted. 23. It cannot be disputed that while permitting the petitioner to retire under VRS, the respondents have taken a view that the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years and also got the qualifying service of 20 years, as the same are the prerequisites for permitting an employee under VRS. Having permitted the petitioner to retire under VRS, the respondents have made the employee to have hope in getting the benefits, which are available under VRS. Had he been put on notice, he would have selected the option either to continue his service, so as to have twenty years of qualifying service for getting the benefits or otherwise. Without having 20 years of qualifying service, the respondents could not have permitted the petitioner to retire under VRS. I am of the considered view that the second respondent is bound by the view taken by the first respondent, so far as it relates to the qualifying service is concerned. The second respondent cannot take a contrary decision, however, harmonious construction is legally possible, whereby if there is any shortage of dues payable to the second respondent, that alone can be deducted. 24. The second respondent cannot take a contrary decision, however, harmonious construction is legally possible, whereby if there is any shortage of dues payable to the second respondent, that alone can be deducted. 24. This Court in the decision reported in Jothi vs. Mani and another relating to the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.1829 of 2008 dated 24.10.2009, took a similar view in DP Sekar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2009(5) MLJ 1361 has held that the petitioner is entitled to the amount with interest at 12% p.a. for the arrears of retiremental benefits from the date when the amount felt due till the date of its actual payment. The aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court is of the view that there is no justification on the part of the respondents for not disbursing the retirement benefits to the petitioner as on the date of the amount fell due. However, considering the Bank rate of interest, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to claim 9% interest from the date when the amount felt due till the date of actual payment being made. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay monthly pension, commuted value of pension along with arrears thereon with interest at 9% p.a for the delayed payment from the date of the amount fell due till the date of actual payment. The respondents are also directed to pay the entire amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.