Judgment :- 1. The issue involved in this writ petition is connected with an earlier order passed by N.Paul Vasanthakumar,J. in respect of the same parties in W.P.No.27176 of 2006, dated 12.7.2010 (The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. S.Pachayappan and another). By the said order, the learned Judge while holding that the first respondent was eligible for grant of pension for the period from 1.7.1997 to 31.12.2002 by counting the temporary service, has upheld a similar award dated 18.1.2006 in C.P.No.4 of 2003 passed by the Labour Court as the one passed in the present case and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Government permitting the first respondent to get the relief granted subject to the order that will be passed in this writ petition, viz., W.P.No.32545 of 2002. The operative portion of the order of the learned Judge is as follows: "4. Since the petitioner (first respondent) is eligible to get pension, by counting the temporary service also for pension, there is no error committed by the second respondent while upholding the claim of the first respondent. As the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.32545 of 2002 is pending, the first respondent is permitted to get the relief granted in this writ petition subject to the orders to be passed in W.P.No.32545 of 2002." 2. This writ petition is filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the award passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.876 of 1997, dated 6.12.2001. The said claim petition was filed by the first respondent claiming a sum of ` 1,10,842/- towards pension for the period from 1.5.1975 to 31.8.1997. The first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 4.7.1964 on daily wages on temporary basis. He was subsequently absorbed into the monthly cadre on 1.8.1965. After the Government transport services were taken over by various Transport Corporations and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department was disbanded, the employees of the Transport Department were absorbed into various Corporations with effect from 1.5.1975. The first respondent was absorbed in the Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited with effect from 1.5.1975 and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Service with effect from 30.4.1975. Therefore, the crucial date for transfer of service into the Corporation is 1.5.1975 as per the G.O.Ms.No.1028, Transport Department, dated 23.9.1985. 3. The first respondent was absorbed in the Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited with effect from 1.5.1975 and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Service with effect from 30.4.1975. Therefore, the crucial date for transfer of service into the Corporation is 1.5.1975 as per the G.O.Ms.No.1028, Transport Department, dated 23.9.1985. 3. As per Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, an employee should have completed ten years of net qualifying government service for pension. Under Rule 2(A) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the daily paid service will not be counted for pension. The first respondent has worked for a period of 9 years 6 months and 28 days. On his filing C.P.No.876 of 1997 claiming pension, the Labour Court, by the impugned award, quantified the pension amount as ` 1,10,842/-and directed the petitioner herein to pay the same to the first respondent. 4. The Labour Court while passing such award has taken note of the fact that after the Transport Department has ceased to continue from 1.5.1975, the first respondent was absorbed in the Pallavan Transport Corporation and by taking into consideration his service rendered in the Corporation along with the service rendered in the Transport Department, he has completed ten years of service and is therefore, eligible for pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the service rendered by the first respondent in the Transport Department between 4.7.1964 and 30.4.1975 itself is for more than ten years. While counting the said period the Labour Court has taken note of the temporary service rendered by the first respondent for the purpose of pension relying upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.19515 of 1998, as confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.522 of 1992 to the effect that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, temporary service rendered by the employee should be taken into consideration. If such temporary service of the first respondent is taken into consideration, certainly even while in service in the Transport Department, the first respondent has completed ten years of service. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. If such temporary service of the first respondent is taken into consideration, certainly even while in service in the Transport Department, the first respondent has completed ten years of service. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is seen that by way of an interim order passed by this Court dated 11.10.2002 the entire amount quantified by the Labour Court, namely ` 1,10,842/-, has been directed to be deposited to the credit of C.P.No.876 of 1997 and the Labour Court was directed to invest the amount in fixed deposit for three years and it is stated that the said amount which is deposited is still in the bank deposit. Since, the writ petition stands dismissed, it is made clear that the first respondent shall be entitled to receive the entire amount of ` 1,10,842/- with accrued interest as on date on production of a copy of this order. 6. Inasmuch as the present writ petition is dismissed by upholding the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court, apart from the payment of the above said amount which is in the deposit, as stated above, the first respondent shall be entitled to the payment as per the award in C.P.No.4 of 2003, dated 18.1.2006 for the period from 1.7.1997 to 31.12.2002 and it is needless to state that the petitioner shall deposit the award amount as per the order of the Labour Court dated 18.1.2006 in C.P.No.4 of 2003 to the credit of the said claim petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount also. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.