Judgment : 1. W.P.No.14474 of 2002 is filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 03.09.2001 whereby the petitioner's claim for pension was rejected on the reason that the petitioner did not have 20 years of service and did not complete 50 years of age on the date of his voluntary retirement. 2. W.P.No.14473 of 2002 is filed by the very same petitioner seeking for writ of declaration declaring Rule 16(a)(ii) of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Funds Rules, published in G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 15.12.2000 as illegal, ultravires of the constitution of India. 3. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Transport Corporation as Conductor on 08.10.1978. The petitioner after putting more than 20 years of service, expressed his willingness to retire voluntarily. His request was forwarded by the Branch Manager through his letters dated 21.06.1999 and 08.07.1999 to the General Manager of the second respondent Corporation. Though it was originally rejected, the petitioner was subsequently permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 31.12.1999 through the communication dated 16.12.1999. The Deputy Manager also issued a Service Certificate dated 31.12.1999 certifying that the petitioner was in service from 16.03.1979 to 31.12.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to sanction pension. The said request was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 20 years of service and also not attained the age of 50 years at the time of voluntary retirement, by relying on Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition in W.P.No.14474 of 2002 is filed before this Court. 4. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents till this date. Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, learned counsel for the second respondent Corporation however now seeks time to file counter affidavit. I am not inclined to grant time for filing counter affidavit for two reasons, firstly, that the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2002 and notice was ordered therein to the respondents and even after a period of 11 years, they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit and only when the matter was taken up today for final disposal, they seek time to file counter affidavit which I consider as an unreasonable request. Secondly, the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is already covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in Writ Appeal made in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2007 dated 20.03.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench rejected the similar objection raised by the Transport Corporation by holding that having accepted voluntary retirement on the assumption that the employees had completed 20 years of service, the Corporation cannot turn back and contend that because of non-completion of 20 years of service, the employee was not eligible for pension. 5. The relevant paragraphs of the abovesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court are extracted herein: "3. The present first respondent was initially appointed as a Trainee Driver and subsequently regularized in the service with effect from 01.07.1982. During the period as Trainee Driver, he had become a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme on 01.08.1981. Subsequently, he had sought for voluntary retirement pursuant to a voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Transport Corporation making it available to persons who were above 50 years and had completed 20 years of service. Under such scheme, the present first respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily from service with effect from 31.05.2003 obviously on the assumption that he had completed 20 years of service. 4. In the meanwhile, the Pension Scheme had been made applicable to the Corporation Employees with effect from 01.09.1998. After retirement, the present first respondent had requested the Corporation to forward his papers to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Chennai-9. However, under the impugned letters, the Corporation refused to forward all those papers for availing pension. Subsequently, the present first respondent applied to the Corporation for payment of pension, but, the Corporation denied such claim of the petitioner by issuing impugned letters, wherein it was indicated that he had not completed 20 years of service and he had only completed 19 years, 8 months and 27 days of service. This calculation was made by deducting the period when the applicant was on leave on loss of pay. 5. In the writ petition, the contention of the present first respondent was accepted by the learned Single Judge by referring to Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Rules, whereunder, it is indicated that service can be rounded off to the nearest year. 6. 5. In the writ petition, the contention of the present first respondent was accepted by the learned Single Judge by referring to Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Rules, whereunder, it is indicated that service can be rounded off to the nearest year. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact, the provision relating to rounding off the year is applicable to the persons who entered into service only after 01.01.1998 and it may not be applicable to other existing employees. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not feel that it is necessary to delve into this question, as, in our opinion, if the present first respondent had not completed 20 years of service, he was not eligible for seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme provided by the Transport Corporation and therefore at that stage, the Transport Corporation should not have accepted such voluntary retirement. Having accepted such voluntary retirement on the assumption that the employees had completed 20 years of service, now the appellant Corporation cannot turn back and contend that because of non-completion of 20 years of service, the present first respondent was not eligible to pension. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed a decision of the Apex Court made in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16446/2013 dated 08.05.2013 arising out of the judgment made in Writ Appeal No.629 of 2012 dated 17.09.2012 by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the matter, has observed that once the application for voluntary retirement was accepted, the Corporation and its Officers were estopped from questioning the entitlement of the employee to receive the pensionary benefit. Thus, by dismissing the S.L.P., the Apex Court has also imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Managing Director of the Corporation. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder: Respondent No.1 challenged the denial of pensionary benefits by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge referred to the orders passed in other similar cases and held that there was absolutely no reason to deny pensionary benefits to respondent No.1. He accordingly allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge referred to the orders passed in other similar cases and held that there was absolutely no reason to deny pensionary benefits to respondent No.1. He accordingly allowed the writ petition. Paragraph 9 of order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6701/2011 reads as under:- "The very same issue was considered in other writ petition in WP.No.7118/2009 wherein the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following an order passed in WP.No.1949/2007 dated 19.02.2009 passed under similar circumstances, allowed the writ petition with a direction to make a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent therein, so as to enable him to initiate action to send the necessary papers to the Tamil Nadu Transport Employees Pension Fund Trust. In that case, the petitioner therein was only 48 years of age at the time of voluntary retirement and only on that reason he was denied pension. The order made in WP.No.1949/2007 dated 19.02.2009 which is relied on by the learned Single Judge was passed by relying on a Division Bench Judgment in WA.No.647/2011 dated 20.04.2011. Moreover, the very same order of the learned Single Judge made in WP.No.7118/2009 was challenged before the Hon'ble First Bench of the Principal Seat in WA.No.647/2011 and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble First Bench on 20.04.2011. Myself had also considered the same issue in WP.No.11228/2009 dated 10.01.2012 in the matter of G.Ariyappan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai and held that the respondents cannot take double stand one for permitting the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and another for considering the pension. In view of the above said orders passed by this Court and following the same, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking for pension with effect from 01.04.2000 and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks in the light of the observation made in this writ petition". The petitioner carried the matter to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal by holding that after having accepted the application for voluntary retirement, the Corporation and its officers were not entitled to deny pension to respondent No.1 on the ground that he had not attained the age of 50 years on the date of retirement. The petitioner carried the matter to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal by holding that after having accepted the application for voluntary retirement, the Corporation and its officers were not entitled to deny pension to respondent No.1 on the ground that he had not attained the age of 50 years on the date of retirement. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record. In our considered view, after having accepted the prayer of the respondent No.1 for voluntary retirement with effect from 01.04.2000, it was not open to the officers of the Corporation to deny him pension and other retiral benefits. If the concerned authority felt that on account of his age, respondent No.1 was not entitled to seek voluntary retirement then there was no occasion for the authority to pass order dated 20.03.2000. Once the application for voluntary retirement was accepted, the Corporation and its officers were estopped from questioning the entitlement of respondent No.1 to receive pensionary benefit. We may mention that in an identical matter, the special leave petition filed by the General Manager of the Corporation and another was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2012 on the ground of delay and also on merits. The end result of the above enumeration is that the special leave petition is wholly meritless and deserves to be dismissed, which we hereby do. For dragging respondent No.1 in frivolous and totally unwarranted litigation, which forced him to spend his hard earned money, the Corporation is saddled with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to ensure that the amount of pension etc., due to the respondent No.1 including the arrears and cost are paid within a period of two months from today by getting prepared demand draft in his name from a Nationalised Bank." 7. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.585 of 2007 dated 20.03.2008 as well as the order of the Apex Court passed in S.L.P. No.16446/2013 dated 08.05.2013, confirming the order made in Writ Appeal No.629 of 2012 in similar matter would show that the respondents herein are not entitled to raise any objection as raised in the impugned order to reject the claim of the petitioner for pension. 8. 8. Accordingly, I find that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the decision of the Apex Court as referred to supra. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner is also entitled to get appropriate interest. Thus W.P.No.14474 of 2012 is allowed as indicated above. 9. Since the impugned order in W.P.No.14474/2002 is quashed, I find that there is no necessity for considering the other writ petition filed for writ of declaration. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the other writ petition may be closed as unnecessary in view of the order passed in the present writ petition. Thus the other writ petition in W.P.No.14473 of 2002 is disposed of accordingly. No costs.