Judgment P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. These writ appeals have been preferred against the common order of the learned single judge dated 03.12.2012 made in W.P.Nos.276 and 5907 of 2006 holding various Transport Corporations of Tamil Nadu liable to pay pension to the employees of the said Corporations, who went on voluntary retirement between 01.09.1998 and 15.12.2000 and directing the extension of benefit of pension to such persons and to the petitioner in W.P.No.5907/2006, who filed the said writ petition in his individual capacity seeking such pensionary benefits. 2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Trust, represented by its Administrator functioning at Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2, which figured as the third respondent in W.P.No.276/2006 figures as the sole appellant in W.A.No.2210/2013. It figures as the first appellant in W.A.No.2211/2013 and the Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Sali, Chennai - 2 figures as the second appellant in W.A.No.2211/2013. 3. Mr. P. Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel who appears for the appellants in both the writ appeals, has argued that clause 16(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules makes those who retired voluntarily eligible to avail benefit under the Pension Rules provided they fulfill the conditions stipulated therein; that the said clause prescribed a twin condition, namely putting in not less than 20 years of service and having completed 50 years of age as the eligibility criteria for availing the benefits under the pension scheme; that the employees represented by the first respondent in W.A.No.2210/2013 and the sole respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013 having not fulfilled the twin condition and having fulfilled only one of those conditions, were not eligible to claim the pensionary benefits under the pension scheme; that the validity of the above said rule had not been challenged in the writ petitions and in view of the same, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed and that the learned single Judge on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant rule allowed the writ petitions and issued the directions as prayed for therein. 4. 4. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, namely the first respondent in W.A.No.2210/2013 and the sole respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013 that the retired employees represented by the first respondent in W.A.No.2210/2013 and the sole respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013 had fulfilled the conditions for opting for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme; that when they exercised their option by giving notice to go on voluntary retirement, the Management, on being satisfied with the fulfillment of the eligibility criterion, permitted them to retire voluntarily; that after having allowed them to retire voluntarily under the said scheme prescribing an impossible condition in the new pension scheme floated pursuant to 12(3) settlement could not have been intended; that the eligibility criterion found in clause 16(a)(ii) of the Pension Rules could have only prospective application and shall not have retrospective application though the pension rules were given retrospective effect with effect from 01.09.1998; that the concerned State Transport Corporations, after the notification of pension rules, did not give any option to those employees, who retired voluntarily before 15.12.2000, on which date G.O.Ms.No.135 Transport (D) Department came to be passed approving the pension rules who did not fulfill the eligibility criterion as per clause 16(a)(ii) of Rules, should rejoin duty to complete their service to become eligible for pension under the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules; that having allowed them to retire voluntarily as per the then existing rules and made the pension rule applicable with retrospective effect from 01.09.1998, the Transport Corporations and the appellants were not justified in denying the pensionary benefits as per the said pension rules and that the learned single, with a clear vision and on proper appreciation of facts, the relevant Government Orders and the provisions of pension rules, rendered justice by holding that the first respondent association in W.A.No.2210/2013 and the respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013 are entitled to the pensionary benefits under the pension rules. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that in view of the introduction of the pension rules giving retrospective effect to it with effect from 01.09.1998, they were denied the benefit under the Employees Provided Fund Scheme and that such employees will be left in lurch, as they cannot get the benefits under the Provident Fund scheme, if they are denied the benefit of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. 5. 5. We have paid our anxious consideration to the above said submissions made on both sides. 6. The persons regarding whom pensionary benefits had been sought for in W.P.No.276/2006 and the petitioner in W.P.No.5907/2006, were the persons who retired voluntarily under a Scheme called Special Scheme for Voluntary Retirement of Employees of Transport Corporation, which was brought into effect on and from 03.11.1987. It contemplated that the employee preferring to retire under the scheme, should satisfy two conditions viz. that he had completed 50 years of age and had put in not less than 20 years of service. By a subsequent amendment to the Scheme by letter No.11019/C2/88-13 dated 16.11.1990 issued by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department, the condition was relaxed by modifying the conditions. As per the modified scheme, those who had completed 50 years of age and put in a minimum qualifying service of 15 years or those who had put in 20 years of continuous service without reference to his age, were made eligible to avail the benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Thereafter a new pension scheme came to be framed by virtue of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 13.02.1999. As per the new pension scheme, those who were on rolls of State Transport Undertakings as on 31.08.1998, could have exercised the option of joining the new pension scheme or of continuing to be a member in the existing employees Contributory Pension Fund scheme. It also provided in clause 16(a)(ii) that those who voluntarily retire, should have rendered a qualifying service of 20 years or more and should have attained the age of 50 years as on the date of such voluntary retirement to get the benefit of the pension scheme. 7. The first respondent in W.A.No.2210/2013, namely the, The State Transport and Transport Corporation Retired Employees Welfare Association, has espoused the cause of the employees of various State Transport Corporations, who retired voluntarily in between 01.09.1998 and 15.12.2000 under the then existing Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which made the employees eligible to retire voluntarily on completion of 15 years of service and on completion of the age of 50 years or irrespective of the age on completion of 20 years of service. The retired employees represented by the first respondent in W.A.No.2210/2013 were the persons, who retired voluntarily in accordance with the then existing Voluntary Retirement Scheme in between 01.09.1998 and 15.12.2000. The first respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013, namely B.Singaravelu, also retired during the said period, more specifically on 31.05.1999, after having put in 20 years of continuous service and also after crossing the age of 50 years. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would concede that if he had fulfilled both the eligibility criterions, namely the length of service and the age, then he shall be eligible to claim pension under the new pension scheme. However, in respect of the other persons represented by the first respondent in W.A.No.2210/82013 and also in respect of first respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013, in case he did not fulfill both the conditions stipulated in Rule 16(a)(ii), the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that they are not eligible to seek pension under the new scheme, since the vires of the said rule, namely clause 16(a)(ii) has not been challenged in either of the writ petitions concerned in these writ appeals. 9. In this regard, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not necessary for the contesting respondents to have challenged the vires of the said clause and on the other hand, they can very well contend that the said clause in its application to those who retired voluntarily on or after 01.09.1998 and before 15.12.2000, the date from which the pension shall be interpreted in such a way that it does not take away the right already accrued on the basis of the acceptance of their request for voluntary retirement as per the then prevailing scheme, on the ground that the pension rule does not provide any specific clause for the redressal of the grievance of the persons who might have retired voluntarily prior to 15.12.2000 but on or after 01.09.1998 and that hence by way of a purposive interpretation, this court has to apply clause 16(a)(ii) prospectively. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, once the Transport Corporation has allowed an employee to voluntarily retire when he sought permission to go on voluntary retirement as per the scheme for voluntary retirement prevailing at that point of time, thereafter it cannot go back from its commitment and contend that such employee shall not be entitled to the retiral benefits including pension. 10. In a similar case in which, an employee of the Transport Corporation, who was allowed to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 31.05.2003 (after the introduction of the new scheme) on the assumption that he had completed 20 years of service, another Division Bench of this court held that the Transport Corporation was not justified in denying pension. It was decided based on estoppel. The Division Bench made the following observation in the said case, namely W.A.(MD) No.585/2007 dated 20.03.2008 between The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Division) Ltd., vs. Karuppaiah and 2 others: "....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 service, now the appellant Corporation cannot turn back to contend that because of non-completion of 20 years of service, the present first respondent was not eligible to pension." 11. In yet another case, an employee of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kovai Division-II), Erode was allowed to voluntarily retire from service on 31.07.2000 after he completed 20 years of continuous service. But he had not completed the age of 50 years. As per the then prevailing scheme, he was allowed to retire voluntarily under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Transport Corporation also had disbursed the gratuity, employee's contribution of provided fund. But the employer's contribution had not been paid to the petitioner therein. But he had not completed the age of 50 years. As per the then prevailing scheme, he was allowed to retire voluntarily under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Transport Corporation also had disbursed the gratuity, employee's contribution of provided fund. But the employer's contribution had not been paid to the petitioner therein. Under the said circumstances, a learned single judge of this court relying on the judgment of the Division Bench cited supra, allowed the writ petition filed by the employee and directed the authority concerned, to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of necessary papers. Such direction was issued in W.P.No.7118/2009 (Krishnaswamy vs. The General Manager, TNSTC (Kovai Division-II), Erode) based on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.585/2007. The said order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.7118/2009 was challenged before another Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.647/2011. The Division bench led by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, dismissed the writ appeal on 20.04.2011 making the following observations: "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 judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.585 of 2007 and allowed the writ petition." 12. Moreover, now the issue is not res integra and on the other hand, it is a settled one covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.16446/2013 dated 08.05.2013 between M.D., TNSTC (MADURAI) LTD. Vs. M Natarajan & Anr. When a similar case went before the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such an employee who was allowed to voluntarily retire under the then prevailing scheme on completion of 20 years of service, even though he had not completed the age of 50 years, was entitled to the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits as per the pension scheme. In the said case which went before the Supreme court, the employee was allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from 01.04.2000 on completion of 20 years of service without any reference to his age and admittedly he had not attained the age of 50 years on the date of retirement. In the said case which went before the Supreme court, the employee was allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from 01.04.2000 on completion of 20 years of service without any reference to his age and admittedly he had not attained the age of 50 years on the date of retirement. The Transport Corporation, in that case, relying on Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules had contended that unless both the conditions stipulated in the said rule were fulfilled, the employees who went on voluntary retirement, would not be entitled to claim pension and retiral benefits under the new pension rules. The said contention was rejected and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, besides categorically holding that the employee was entitled to pension, saddled the transport corporation with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder. "In our considered view, after having accepted the prayer of respondent No.1 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 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, was no occasion for that 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 benefits." 13. Following the dictum made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natarajan's case cited supra, yet another Division Bench of this court, in W.A.No.1937/2013, rejected the contention of the Transport Corporation by judgment dated 28.10.2013. 14. In a similar case, which came up before the another Division Bench (one of us NPVJ was part of the Division Bench) of this court sitting at Madurai in W.A.(MD) No.45 of 2013 judgment dated 04.06.2013, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natarajan's case cited supra, it was observed that denying such pensionary benefits to the persons, who went on voluntary retirement from service in accordance with the scheme with effect from 01.09.1998 was not justified. The employee therein was also similarly placed. Besides rejecting the claim of the transport corporation, the Division Bench also chose to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- with the following observation: "The appellant had given the first respondent much mental and financial strain. It is really a fight between a 'Goliath and a Lilliputian'. The employee therein was also similarly placed. Besides rejecting the claim of the transport corporation, the Division Bench also chose to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- with the following observation: "The appellant had given the first respondent much mental and financial strain. It is really a fight between a 'Goliath and a Lilliputian'. The appellant is not right in its approach. In the circumstances, that the appellant have to be saddled with a cost of Rs.5,000/- so as to dissuade it from not to indulge further in this kind of exercises." 15. The above said discussions will make it clear that the issue raised in these writ appeals are not res integra and that it has already been covered and finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Natarajan's case and by various Division Benches of this court. Even after such judgments/orders rejecting similar pleas wherein the concerned Transport Corporations were saddled with costs, the appellants have chosen to prefer these appeals against the order of the learned single judge, which is in tune with the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Division Benches of this court. Hence we deem it appropriate to dismiss the writ appeals together with a cost of Rs.25,000/-to be paid to the sole respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013. In the result, both the writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the sole respondent in W.A.No.2211/2013. The appellants shall work out the pensionary benefits and disburse the amount within a period of eight weeks from this day. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.