JUDGMENT D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic, in the Boat House, Ooty, by the second respondent on 27.02.1967. The Boat House was under the control of the second respondent. His service was regularised by an order dated 01.12.1969 with effect from 01.10.1967. 3. However, on 17.11.1976, the administrative control of the Boat House was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited (shortly TTDC), the third respondent herein. The petitioner and three others were absorbed in TTDC without their consent. They did not opt to get absorption in the TTDC service since it is a non pensionary one. 4. The petitioner along with others requested the second respondent to revert them back to the parent department. Their request was acceded to and the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 476, Information, Tourism and (Tamil) Culture (Tourism II) Department, dated 06.07.1983 reverting the service of the petitioner and three others back to the Fisheries Department, by treating the period of service rendered by them in TTDC as on deputation. 5. In this regard, the relevant passage in G.O. Ms. No. 476 is extracted hereunder:- “In the circumstances, the Government direct that the following 4 employees of the Boat House, Ooty, who were transferred to the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited be reverted to the Fisheries Department treating the period of their service in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited as on deputation.” 6. Though G.O. Ms. No. 476 was passed reverting the petitioner and three others back to the Fisheries Department, no consequential order was passed relieving the petitioner from Boat House that was under the control of the third respondent. 7. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 2931 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated 23.05.1995 in O.A. No. 2931 of 1995 directing the respondents therein to pass orders in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 476, within a period of two months. 8. Only thereafter, an order dated 31.07.1995 was passed relieving the petitioner from TTDC service. But he was not given any posting order and he was placed under compulsory wait and thereafter, he was posted as Watchman in the Office of the Assistant Director, Fisheries. 9. While so, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.1997. 8. Only thereafter, an order dated 31.07.1995 was passed relieving the petitioner from TTDC service. But he was not given any posting order and he was placed under compulsory wait and thereafter, he was posted as Watchman in the Office of the Assistant Director, Fisheries. 9. While so, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.1997. Though he rendered service from the year 1967 to 1997 for about 30 years, he was not paid pension on the ground that he rendered service only for 5 years 4 months and 10 days. 10. The second respondent passed an order dated 22.05.2001 rejecting the petitioner's request for pension on the ground that he does not have the qualifying service for pension. It is stated therein that the qualifying service of the petitioner was taken as 5 years 4 months and 10 days that falls less than 10 years to give minimum pension. He was paid only a nominal gratuity for the period of 5 years 4 months and 10 days. 11. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.05.2001 of the second respondent and for a direction to pay him pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits for his 30 years of service. 12. A reply affidavit is filed by the respondents admitting the aforesaid facts. But it is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner rendered service only for 5 years 4 months and 10 days. 13. Heard both sides. 14. I am not able to appreciate the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2, particularly when the aforesaid facts are not disputed. It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner opted to serve in TTDC. It is admitted that G.O.Ms.No.476 was passed treating the service rendered in TTDC as on deputation. Hence, the entire service in Boat House shall be counted along with the later service. That is, the entire period of service from 01.10.1967 to 31.08.1997 shall be counted for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. Hence, the entire service in Boat House shall be counted along with the later service. That is, the entire period of service from 01.10.1967 to 31.08.1997 shall be counted for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders directing the second respondent to send proposal for the service rendered by the petitioner from 01.10.1967 to 31.08.1997 for payment of pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such order, the second respondent is directed to send necessary proposal to the Principal Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai, within a period of one month thereafter. On receipt of such proposal, the Principal Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai 18 is directed to authorise pension, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 16. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.