JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthkumar, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal/first respondent herein in O.A.No.1251 of 2011 dated 25.2.2014 and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to shift the date of absorption of the petitioner in the 4th respondent as was done in the case of several other employees and to further direct the respondents 2 and 3 to sanction pension to the petitioner with effect from the date when the same was extended to similarly placed persons. 2. The case of the petitioner, who was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, is that he joined in the services of Civil Aviation Department/2nd respondent herein as Fire Operator from 23.4.1964 as permanent employee and he was absorbed by the Airport Authority of India/4th respondent herein with effect from 5.11.1973. Petitioner had put in 9 years and 7 months service in the second respondent department (Civil Aviation) and he retired from the services of the 4th respondent on 31.7.2000, thus having a total service of 36 years. 3. In order to get pensionary benefits, petitioner made representations, the last of which was made on 31.3.2011 seeking to shift the date of absorption in the 4th respondent's service as 31.12.1975 so that petitioner's total service would exceed ten years, which is the qualifying period to become entitled for pension in Civil Aviation Department. The said representations having not been considered, he approached the first respondent Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1251 of 2011 with the following prayer: "(i) to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to shift the date of absorption of the applicant in the 3rd respondent as 31.12.1975 as done in the case of several other employees, and (ii) consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to sanction pension with effect from the date when the same had been extended to the employees who had filed W.P.No.39431 to 39434 of 2005, and (iii) pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal think fit in the circumstances of the case." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons were granted such relief and even with regard to the persons absorbed from Central Public Works Department to the 4th respondent/Airport Authority of India, this Court had granted relief of shifting the date of absorption, in order to get pensionary benefit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons were granted such relief and even with regard to the persons absorbed from Central Public Works Department to the 4th respondent/Airport Authority of India, this Court had granted relief of shifting the date of absorption, in order to get pensionary benefit. The learned counsel further submitted that eventhough this Court passed several orders granting relief to similarly placed persons, the Tribunal without granting relief to the petitioner, directed the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner retired in the year 2000, even after 14 years he could not get pensionary benefits. Learned counsel also produced several similar orders passed by this Court. 5. We have also heard the learned counsels appearing for respondents 2 to 4. 6. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.4213 of 2006 dated 6.4.2009, this Court considered a similar claim and held thus: "7. The Tribunal failed to take into account the facts that stare at one's face i.e. the concerned Department viz., Central Public Works Department, recommended for "shifting of the date of absorption" in various letters mentioned above. Likewise, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the fifth respondent had no objection for "shifting of the date of absorption" of services with them. The Tribunal also lost sight of the fact that instances were given by the third respondent that in the case of employees of Civil Aviation Department, "shifting of the date of absorption" was made for availing pension when they were absorbed in the services of the fifth respondent. Therefore, denying similar benefit to the petitioner is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in this regard: (i) AJAY JADHAV VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA reported in 1999(4) L.L.N. 73 (ii) M.SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008(4) L.L.N. 113 Without taking into account those facts, the Tribunal mechanically rejected the same on the ground of limitation. 8. Since the question of getting pension being continuous cause of action and it is held that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to pension, then he has a right to receive pension every month. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2008(4) L.L.N. 113 Without taking into account those facts, the Tribunal mechanically rejected the same on the ground of limitation. 8. Since the question of getting pension being continuous cause of action and it is held that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to pension, then he has a right to receive pension every month. Therefore, while considering the question of latches and delay, when there is continuing cause of action, the right to get such pension does not get permanently barred, but the right to get arrears alone get barred by the principles of limitation. In this connection, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court made in UNION OF INDIA vs. TARSEM SINGH reported in 2008 (2) S.C.C. (L & S), 765 can be referred, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraphs 7 and 8 at page 768:- "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/ limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/ successive wrongs will apply. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/ limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/ successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances." 9. Therefore, in our opinion, even though the present petitioner could have claimed for "shifting of the date of absorption" earlier, since he filed the case before the Tribunal in the year 2005, we deem it proper that the benefits shall be extended to him from the date of such application and not from an earlier date, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, as already noticed, since the concerned authorities had given benefits to similarly placed employees, there was no reason to deny the similar benefits to the present petitioner and to treat the petitioner differently. Therefore, we allow the writ petition in part and observe that the order of absorption of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been postponed till the date when he would have completed 10 years of service under the second respondent and on that basis pro-rata pension payable to the petitioner shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner. However, arrears would be paid from the date on which the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. The petitioner is required to refund the gratuity already received with 9 per cent simple interest per annum. The Department will adjust the arrears and pay the balance to the petitioner. However, arrears would be paid from the date on which the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. The petitioner is required to refund the gratuity already received with 9 per cent simple interest per annum. The Department will adjust the arrears and pay the balance to the petitioner. If any amount is payable by the petitioner, by calculating such amount with interest at 9 per cent per annum, the petitioner would refund the same within a period of three months from the date on which the communication would be received. The order shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy the order. No costs." Following the above order, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013 by order dated 4.10.2013 passed similar orders. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even though a Special Leave Petition was filed and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.07.2010 by rejecting the request seeking condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the said Special Leave Petition, the said order of the Division Bench has been implemented and similarly placed persons who have not completed 10 years of service in Central PWD were granted pension and still they are receiving pension. 8. In the light of the said orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.4.2009 and order dated 4.10.2013, which have become final, the Tribunal was not justified in giving mere direction in O.A.No.1251 of 2011 by order dated 25.2.2014 and consequently the said order stands set aside. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the earlier orders made in W.P.No.4213 of 2006 dated 6.4.2009 and W.P.Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013. The respondents are directed to comply with the direction (as per para 9 in the order cited), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.