JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension every month from 01.10.1999 with all arrears with interest of 16% p.a. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Driver' on 13.12.1979 on daily wage basis. The petitioner's service was subsequently regularised with effect from 01.01.1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Driver and further as Selection Grade Driver. The petitioner had completed 19 years, 9 months and 17 days of service with the first respondent Corporation. Due to his ill health, the petitioner opted to go on voluntary retirement and therefore, he submitted application for VRS to the first respondent. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the first respondent, through his proceedings, dated 10.09.1999 and consequently, the petitioner was relieved from service on 30.09.1999. The petitioner is eligible for pension and as such, he approached the first respondent seeking for pension on several occasions. In fact, the first respondent through his communication, dated 29.12.2000 informed the petitioner that he is entitled to get monthly pension from the date of his retirement. However, the monthly pension has not been paid and therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief as stated supra. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a 'Driver' for a period of six months on probation with effect from 01.01.1981 and the petitioner voluntarily retired from service on 30.09.1999. While calculating the period of service, the petitioner had put in only 18 years, 1 month and 16 days of his service, as against, they required number of 20 years of service, which alone makes the petitioner eligible for getting pension. Thus, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had not put in twenty years or more service on the date of his retirement and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. In this case admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1999. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. In this case admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1999. Having allowed a person to go on voluntary retirement, whether the respondents are entitled to deny the benefit of pension only on the ground that the said person had not put in twenty years of service is the question which already came up for considering before this court on several occasions and the Hon'ble Division Bench rejected such contention of the authorities in an order made in W.A.No.585 of 2007, dated 20.03.2008. The said Division Bench order was subsequently followed by a learned single Judge of this court made in W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008. The learned single Judge had extracted the Hon'ble Division Bench order at paragraph 3 of his order as follows:- “3. This matter is already covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20.3.2008 made in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2007. Paragraphs 7 of the said Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder: "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 can not 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." 4. In view of the said position, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to forward necessary pension papers to the second respondent within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 6. In view of the above said facts, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition, as his case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the learned single Judge made in W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, in which the learned single Judge has followed the order of the Division Bench as stated supra. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to disburse the pension to the petitioner with all arrears with effect from 01.10.1999 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.