Judgment : 1. The petitioner joined as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation on 21.06.1977 on temporary basis. Subsequently, his services were regularised with effect from 01.01.1979. The petitioner had opted for Voluntary Retirement and accordingly, he retired from service voluntarily on 31.07.2000 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). 2. The petitioner was denied pension on the ground that he did not complete 50 years of age when he retired voluntarily. The petitioner questioned the same by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.7118 of 2009. The writ petition was allowed by an order dated 30.04.2010. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- "5. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to initiate the action within a period of another two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to send the necessary papers to the Tamil Nadu Transport Employees Pension Fund Trust within a period of another four weeks and on receipt of the same, the said Authority shall consider the matter and pass the appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the necessary papers from the second respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 3. Thereafter, the respondent filed writ appeal in W.A.No.647 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the First Bench of this Court by judgment dated 20.04.2011. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment reads as follows:- "2. Admittedly, the respondent joined the service of the appellant-Transport Corporation in the year 1977 and got voluntary retirement in the year 2000 and thereby completed 20 years of continuous service. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge rightly relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.585 of 2007 and allowed the writ petition. 3. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding rendered by the learned single Judge. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding rendered by the learned single Judge. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed." In these circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to pension under the relevant Rules. 4. While so, when the petitioner made a claim for pension, it was pointed out that the petitioner has availed housing loan, which is detailed as under:- “TABLE” “TAMIL” 5. The Housing loan was obtained by the petitioner from the Employer Contribution to the Provident Fund. The pension was introduced to the employees of the Transport Corporation with effect from 01.09.1998. The employees who retire prior to 01.09.1998 are not eligible for pension. Pension fund was created pursuant to Section 12(3) settlement and Employer's contribution was sent to the first respondent trust for payment of pension to the employees of the Transport Corporation. 6. Therefore, the Corporation sent a notice dated 13.03.2012 stating that the petitioner should pay a total amount of Rs.3,00,106/- as extracted above. The said amount includes the principle as well as interest thereon. It is stated that if the petitioner pays the said amount of housing loan, the pension benefits would be settled. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, since the workman could avail loan from the employer contribution of the Provident Fund before the introduction of pension scheme and the employee need not repay the loan amount and at the time of retirement, he would get a lesser amount from the Employer Contribution, if he availed loan. But, now, since the amount towards the employer contribution was sent to the first respondent Trust for payment of pension, the persons who availed housing loan should repay the same with interest, if they need pension. 8. In fact in similar circumstances, the Apex Court made it clear in DTC Retired Employees' Association and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 61 that employees who have taken advances from the employer contribution shall return back with interest to avail the pension benefits, since Delhi Transport Corporation also introduced pension by sending the employer contribution to the pension trust, as the respondent Corporation herein. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the following passages found in paragraph 15 of the said judgment:- "15. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the following passages found in paragraph 15 of the said judgment:- "15. The next contention urged by the appellants’ counsel is that DTC was not entitled to charge interest on the employer’s share of provident fund received by the employees on retirement. Prior to the Pension Scheme, the employees were entitled to get benefit of the Contributory Provident Fund. These employees on retirement accepted the employer’s share of provident fund. The Scheme specifically provided that those who wanted to opt for pension should return the employer’s share of provident fund with interest. However, the retired employees had utilised the money received to their advantage. Therefore, they are bound to return the same along with interest; otherwise, a section of the employees would be unduly benefited vis-à-vis other employees. Therefore, we do not think that such a clause in the Scheme is irrational or illegal. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the High Court." 9. When the matter came up on the last occasion, I directed the Corporation to work out the pension payable to the petitioner from the date of his voluntary retirement up to this date. The learned counsel for the corporation has produced the worksheet stating that Commutation of pension and monthly pension from the date of retirement viz., 31.08.2014 comes to Rs.6,74,972/-. On the other hand, the petitioner has to pay Rs.3,93,676.00 towards housing loan amount received from the Provident Fund Account upto August 2014. This Court also directed the learned counsel for the respondent to find out as to whether the arrears of pensionary benefits is more than the loan amount and in that event, the same could be adjusted towards housing loan and the petitioner could get pension prospectively and also the balance of arrears, if any. 10. In these circumstances, an affidavit dated 08.09.2014 of the General Manager of the second respondent Corporation is filed, wherein, it is stated that while the petitioner has to pay Rs.3,93,676/- towards housing loan, the Corporation has to pay Rs. 6,74,972/- towards Commutation amount and pension arrears upto 31.08.2014. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the Corporation charges interest on the housing loan, the petitioner shall also be paid interest on the pension arrears. 12. 6,74,972/- towards Commutation amount and pension arrears upto 31.08.2014. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the Corporation charges interest on the housing loan, the petitioner shall also be paid interest on the pension arrears. 12. As far as interest on the housing loan is concerned, the petitioner is bound to pay the interest, if he wants to avail the pension as held by the Apex Court in Delhi Transport Corporation case (cited supra). As far as interest on the pension is concerned, I am not going into the merits of the said issue. I leave it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies by filing appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pay the Commutation amount and Pension arrears to the petitioner less the housing loan availed by the petitioner with interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall send proposal for Commutation and payment of pension, within a period of two weeks to the first respondent and the first respondent shall pay pension from 01.09.2014 every month and also the arrears, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioner is at liberty to claim interest on the arrears of pension and commutation in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.