Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was a Driver under the respondent/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Division – I), Villupuram. He retired from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 30.04.2002. When he claimed pension under the Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund, it was declined on the ground that he did not attain 50 years of age as on the date of his voluntary retirement though, he had put in more than 20 years of service as required under Clause 16 of the Pension Scheme. The order of rejection passed by the second respondent in his letter No.123/PE5/TNSTC(D-1) 2003 dated 06.02.2003, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:- The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O (Ms) No.2010 Transport Department dated 03.11.1987, introducing a special Scheme for voluntary retirement of employees of State Transport Undertakings. As per paragraph No.2 of the said Government Order, the eligibility for seeking voluntary retirement is 50 years of age and 20 years of service. To be precise, let me extract paragraph No.2 of the said Government Order as follows:- “2. The Voluntary Retirement scheme is applicable to persons of 50 years of age and 20 years of service. However, the Board can relax this in special and deserving cases, particularly in respect of drivers. For every year of service left for the retiring personnel, a lump sum of Rs.5000/- per year will be paid.” 3. Subsequently, the Government issued letter No.11819/C2/00-13 dated 16.11.1990 thereby amending the above Government Order. As per the amended provision, the eligibility for voluntary retirement is 50 years of age and 15 years of qualifying service or 20 years of qualifying service. According to this amended provision, if a person has put in more than 20 years of qualifying service then, irrespective of his age as to whether he has completed 50 years of age or not, he is entitled for voluntary retirement. 4. The petitioner herein had put in more than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, he made a request on 26.02.2002 to the respondents offering to go on voluntary retirement. Admittedly, he had not attained the age of 50 years. Thus, the petitioner was fully qualified to seek voluntary retirement as per the said amended Scheme. 4. The petitioner herein had put in more than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, he made a request on 26.02.2002 to the respondents offering to go on voluntary retirement. Admittedly, he had not attained the age of 50 years. Thus, the petitioner was fully qualified to seek voluntary retirement as per the said amended Scheme. Accordingly, the first respondent by his proceedings in Se.Mu.A.No.4764/Ni7/Tha Na A Po (V.Ko.1)/2002 dated 25.04.2002 permitted the petitioner to retire on voluntary retirement basis under the Scheme with effect from the afternoon of 30th April 2002. As per the said order of voluntary retirement, the petitioner was paid gratuity and other benefits. 5. At that time, when the petitioner retired from service, there was no provision for pension. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund was established with effect from 01.09.1998 as per G.O(Ms).No.135 Transport (D) Department dated 15.12.2000. Clause 16 of the said Rules provides for Monthly Members Pension. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted below:- “16. MONTHLY MEMBER’S PENSION:- a) Pensionable salary shall be the last drawn basic pay. i) Superannuation Pension, if he has rendered a qualifying service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years if 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. b) In the case of exit of an employee, the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following formula namely: Monthly Member’s Pension = Pensionable salary (50% of last drawn basic pay*) x Pensionable service **/30 * Basic pay includes Personal Pay ** The pensionable service shall be restricted to 30 years c) Except as otherwise expressly provided hereinafter the monthly members pension under sub-paragraph (b) mentioned above shall be payable from the date immediately following the date of completion of 58 years of age notwithstanding that the member has retired or ceased to be in the employment. The application for pension shall be submitted in the format prescribed by the Trust. d) The member’s pension is payable till the lifetime of the member. e) Forfeiture of Service on Resignation: Resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past services. The application for pension shall be submitted in the format prescribed by the Trust. d) The member’s pension is payable till the lifetime of the member. e) Forfeiture of Service on Resignation: Resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past services. Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture or past service, if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, under Government Department/State Public Sector Undertaking/Board. In such case, the pensionary benefits shall be transferred to the new employer’s pension fund/EP scheme 1995, as the case may be, and such benefits shall not be directly paid to the individual. f) In the case of existing members who have drawn non-refundable advance before the implementation of this Scheme, out of the employer contribution, shall repay along with interest at the rate of 12% compounded annually for the credit balances available in the Provident Fund Trust for the members from time to time. Only after such remittance, the member shall be entitled for the pensionary benefits admissible under this Scheme. Otherwise, the pensionary benefits will be proportionately reduced. g) In the case of non-member of the Fps-1971, the 1 1/6% of the wages which otherwise would have been remitted to plaintiff Commissioner shall also be remitted by plaintiff Trust to Pension Fund Trust with interest accrued thereon. Otherwise pensionary benefits shall be proportionately reduced.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. The term “member” has been defined in Clause 2(i) of the said Rules which reads as follows:- “2(i) “Member” shall mean a regular employee who is eligible to be a member under the Rules but shall not include an employee, who having been admitted as a member, has subsequently retired or has ceased to be eligible for membership as hereinafter prescribed and includes the emplooyee whose services have otherwise been terminated by reason of dismissal, resignation, retrenchment or otherwise. The STUs shall communicate the names of the new members to the Trustees within one month of their appointment and the details of outgoing employees shall also be furnished within one month.” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully. 8. The STUs shall communicate the names of the new members to the Trustees within one month of their appointment and the details of outgoing employees shall also be furnished within one month.” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully. 8. There is no controversy now before this Court that since the petitioner voluntarily retired from service with effect from 30.04.2002, and since the Scheme came into being retrospectively with effect from 01.09.1998, the petitioner is a “Member” and therefore, he is entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension provided, he satisfies the other requirements. Claiming that he is entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension, the petitioner made a claim. But, by means of impugned order, the second respondent rejected the said claim only on the ground that the petitioner does not satisfy Clause 16 (a) (ii) of the said Rules. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, as per the said provision, it is not only enough that a Member should have had 20 years of qualifying service, in addition, he should also have attained 50 years of age as on the date of voluntary retirement. Since, in this case, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner, though had completed 20 years of qualifying service, since he had not attained 50 years of age, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309 ) . 10. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having allowed the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement, on holding that he is fully qualified for the said exercise, it is not open for the very same respondents to go back to square one and to say that the petitioner is not entitled for pension under the Scheme by taking a different view that the petitioner had not attained 50 years of age. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in C.Nagarajan v. The Management, T.N. State Trnasport Corporation (Mad.) (2011 (1) LLN 164 (Mad.)) wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph No.23 has held as follows:- “23. It cannot be disputed that while permitting the petitioner to retire under VRS, the Respondents have taken a view and 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.” The learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 11. I have considered the above submissions. 12. As I have already stated as per the relevant provisions, as on 30.04.2002, the petitioner was eligible for Voluntary Retirement and that is why he was permitted to go on voluntary retirement. Admittedly, he had completed more than 20 years of qualifying service and equally it is an admitted fact that he did not attain 50 years of age as on the date of voluntary retirement. As I have already pointed out, as per the amended Scheme of voluntary retirement, if an employee had put in 20 years of qualifying service as a whole irrespective of the fact as to whether he had attained 50 years of age or not, he is entitled for voluntary retirement. That is how the petitioner was granted permission to go on voluntary retirement which cannot be found fault with in any manner. 13. That is how the petitioner was granted permission to go on voluntary retirement which cannot be found fault with in any manner. 13. Now, turning to the Scheme for pension, the same was introduced only subsequently as per G.O(Ms).No.135 Transport (D) Department dated 15.12.2000. But the Government gave retrospective effect to the said scheme with effect from 01.09.1998. Therefore, those employees who were in service on or after 01.09.1998 are entitled for pension on their voluntary retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner was a Member eligible for pension provided he satisfies the other requirements as prescribed in Clause 16 of the Rules. Though Clause 16 states that the eligibility criteria for getting voluntary retirement pension is 20 years of qualifying service and 50 years of age, in my considered opinion, this provision cannot be read in isolation. This has to be read along with the provision for voluntary retirement introduced under G.O (Ms) No.2010 Transport Department dated 03.11.1987 and the subsequent Circular No.204/23472/Ni4/TNSTC/90 dated 29.11.1990. The pension Scheme is a welfare measure introduced by the Government and the same should be made applicable equally to all. In other words, there should not be any discrimination. It is not as though the Scheme is not applicable to the persons who have gone on voluntary retirement. Under the scheme, there are two types of pension provided for, viz., Superannuation Pension and Voluntary Retirement Pension. 14. While introducing Voluntary Retirement Pension, the Government did not think it fit to make it prospective. As a welfare measure, the Government thought it fit to have this provision with retrospective effect from 01.09.1998. When that be so, it cannot be said that there can be a classification or differentiation between the employees who had gone on voluntary retirement on completing 20 years of qualifying service and 50 years of age and others who had also gone on voluntary retirement on completing 20 years of qualifying service but, without attaining 50 years of age. 15. As per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 50 years of age with 15 years of qualifying service is enough for voluntary retirement and in my considered opinion, those employees who were granted voluntary retirement on their completing 50 years of age and 15 years of qualifying service are also entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension. 15. As per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 50 years of age with 15 years of qualifying service is enough for voluntary retirement and in my considered opinion, those employees who were granted voluntary retirement on their completing 50 years of age and 15 years of qualifying service are also entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension. Similarly, those who had not attained 50 years of age but had put in 20 years of qualifying service should also be made eligible for Voluntary Retirement Pension. Therefore, Clause 16 of the Rules should be understood so as to take forward the welfare measure which the Government wanted to implement. It cannot be understood in such a way or given a narrow meaning which will affect the very object of the welfare measure which is sought to be achieved by the Government. Thus, I am in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.Nagarajan v. The Management, T.N. State Trnasport Corporation (Mad.) (cited supra). 16. Now, turning to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (cited supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that the said case is factually distinguishable. In that case, there was a conflict between the statutory Rule and administrative instructions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that by means of administrative instructions, an attempt cannot be made to override the statutory Rule. It was in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that the petitioners therein were not entitled for pension since, the statutory Rule did not provide for the same. But in the case on hand, both the pension scheme as well as the voluntary retirement scheme are based only on administrative instructions. In my considered opinion, they are to be read in conjunction so as to take forward the welfare measure which is sought to be achieved by the Government. If that is done, the petitioner herein is also entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 17. In my considered opinion, they are to be read in conjunction so as to take forward the welfare measure which is sought to be achieved by the Government. If that is done, the petitioner herein is also entitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay Voluntary Retirement Pension to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum by making proper calculation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.