JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a direction to the 1st respondent to sanction pension to him for the service rendered by him in the State Transport Department, together with 18% of interest. 2. Heard Mr.M.Muthupandian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.G.Muniratnam, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, he joined as Driver in Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, now known as 'Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.' on 05.12.1968. All the employees of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation were transferred and absorbed permanently in various newly formed State Transport Corporations during 1975 with an assurance for payment of pension for the service rendered in the Transport Department, even during their service in the Department and the petitioner was also absorbed in Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation from 14.07.1975 and retired from service on 27.05.1982 from Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram. 4. The petitioner would state that by a letter dated 19.07.2005, the 2nd respondent herein directed him to apply for pension in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (10) SCC 503 and 2005 (2) SCC 332 and as per G.O.Ms.No.42 Transport (RW) Department, dated 27.05.2005, whereby the cut off date for absorption was revised to 01.04.1982 and the monetary benefits were directed to be paid from 01.01.1988. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for pension to the 1st respondent with relevant details, by a letter dated 25.07.2005, as he had put more than 10 years of qualifying service. Since no action was taken on his application, the petitioner made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner in their letter dated 26.09.2006 that the issue relating to sanction of pension was under consideration of the Government. However, no orders regarding sanction of pension were passed so far. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter. He has stated that the petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 05.12.1968 and he was absorbed in the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.05.1975 and not on 14.07.1975 as stated in the affidavit. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.1028 dated 23.09.1985 granted terminal benefits to all the employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. He has stated that the petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on 05.12.1968 and he was absorbed in the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.05.1975 and not on 14.07.1975 as stated in the affidavit. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.1028 dated 23.09.1985 granted terminal benefits to all the employees of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. As per the said Government Order, a Government Servant should have completed 10 years of net qualifying service in Government as on the date of his permanent absorption in the State Transport Undertakings to become eligible for pension. 5a. It is further stated that some of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees, who had put in less than 10 years of Government Service and above as on the date of their permanent absorption in the State Transport Undertakings were sanctioned pension. Some of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees, who had put in less than 10 years of Government Service have filed writ petitions before this court praying for sanction of pension duly reckoning the service rendered by them in the State Transport Undertakings beyond 01.05.1975/15.09.1975 for the purpose of arriving at the net qualifying service of 10 years to earn pension and this court passed orders allowing the Writ Petitions. As against the order of this court, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 29.10.2003, the Supreme Court directed the 1st respondent to adopt the cut-off date as 01.04.1982 for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service and further directed that the eligible employees shall get the arrears only from 01.01.1988. In order to implement the order passed by the Supreme Court, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.42 Transport (RW) Department, dated 27.05.2005. In continuation of the above said order, the 2nd respondent Corporation informed about the details to the beneficiaries, who have requested for pension and that they have not directed the petitioner to apply for pension as claimed by him. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. To examine the claim of the petitioner, relevant paragraphs in the counter which are necessary for consideration in this matter are extracted hereunder: "6.I respectfully submit that the petitioner has applied for such pension. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. To examine the claim of the petitioner, relevant paragraphs in the counter which are necessary for consideration in this matter are extracted hereunder: "6.I respectfully submit that the petitioner has applied for such pension. On receipt of the pension application from the petitioner, necessary steps were taken to receive the original Service Register from the Government, since it was kept at the Archives Department, Chennai-8, on receipt of the same, it was under the process of preparing necessary pension proposal along with hundreds of similar beneficiaries. While verifying the Service Register of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was actually removed from service from the respondent Corporation on 07.02.1980. Therefore, the petitioner's allegation that he retired from service on 27.05.1982 from the respondent Corporation is totally false and hereby denied as false. 7. I respectfully submit that since the petitioner was removed from service on 07.02.1980 which is prior to 01.04.1982 being the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court of India for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service to earn pension, the petitioner is not eligible to get pension as per Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The said Rule is as follows: "Rule 21: Dismissal or removal of Government Servant from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service." 8.I respectfully submit that the allegation in the affidavit that he had put in more than 10 years of qualifying service is totally false and it is hereby denied as false. As per the Service Register, the net qualifying service of the petitioner is arrived as follows: Day Month Year Date of removal from service 07 021980 Date of permanent absorption into service 01 011970 ------------------------- Total Service 06 01 0010 Less : Non-qualifying service (-) 20 02 0001 ------------------------- i.e. Net qualifying service 16 10 0008 ------------------------- The net qualifying service of the petitioner is below 10 years and hence, he is not eligible for pension as per Rule 43(2) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. " 7a. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was removed from service prior to the cut-off date and he is not having 10 years of net qualifying service and hence, he is not eligible to get Government Pension as claimed in the petition. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. " 7a. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was removed from service prior to the cut-off date and he is not having 10 years of net qualifying service and hence, he is not eligible to get Government Pension as claimed in the petition. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In the above context, it has to be seen that the petitioner's employment in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department from 05.12.1968 is not in dispute. It is true that the Supreme Court in Ananchu Asari case reported in (2003) 10 SCC 503 has fixed the cut-off date for entitlement to pension of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation employees as 01.04.1982. When the said decision was taken on review for clarification, the Supreme Court, by its decision reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 dismissed the review petitions. To implement the order of the Supreme Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.42 Transport (RW) Department, dated 27.05.2005. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent Corporation informed the details to the beneficiaries who have requested for pension. However, the petitioner was removed from service on 07.02.1980 much prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 01.04.1982 as fixed by the Supreme Court for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service to earn pension. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. 9. Further, it is clear from Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 that dismissal or removal of a Government servant from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. In view of the same, when the petitioner herein has been removed from the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation on 07.02.1980 much prior to the cut-off date, he is not entitled to claim pensionary benefits. Therefore, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs.