Judgment : The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying to call for the records of the 1st and 2nd respondents' impugned orders dated 15.10.2012 letter No.44/P2/ThaAPoKa Vuo NeeThi Po/2012-792 and 21.09.2012 bearing ThaAPoKa/Madurai/Va vaiNeeThi8/1627 respectively and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay Pensionary benefits or to pay the corporate Provident Fund and consequently to refund the withheld amount of Rs.10,050/- to the petitioner with interest. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the second respondent Corporation on 06.07.1987. He was confirmed as Driver by the order dated 17.08.1988 w.e.f. 01.08.1988. He rendered 21 years of unblemished service. 3. Due to petitioner's personal inconvenience and ill-health he was unable to continue his job. He made a representation to the second respondent on 12.10.2009 to accept his resignation. The second respondent by proceedings dated 13.02.2010 bearing Department/Aha4/3418/2010 accepted his resignation. He was paid only provident fund amount on 29.04.2010 and Gratuity amount on 10.08.2010. The amount of Rs.10,050/- was withheld by the second respondent. 4. The petitioner made representation in person as well as through post and finally he made a representation on 11.09.2012 for payment of pension, to pay the corporate Provident Fund and refund the withheld amount of Rs.10,050/-. 5. The second respondent by the impugned order dated 21.09.2012 bearing ThaAPoKa/Madurai/Va vaiNeeThi8/1627 and first respondent by letter, dated 15.10.2012 No.44/P2/ThaAPoKa Vuo NeeThi Po/2012-792 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he resigned his job. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the second respondent and letter of the first respondent on the following grounds:- a) The impugned orders are against the Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. b) The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that resignation also amounts to retirement. c) Respondents accepted the resignation of petitioner as per the Rule 12(a) and having worked for more than 21 years he is entitled to pension as per the Rules. d) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1990 SC 1808 (M/s.J.K.Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills Co.Ltd., Kanpur Vs.State of U.P and others), held that the resignation amounts to retirement. 7. The second respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that the salary of the employees were calculated for administrative reasons on 23rd or 24th of every month and paid for 30 days. & Wvg.Mills Co.Ltd., Kanpur Vs.State of U.P and others), held that the resignation amounts to retirement. 7. The second respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that the salary of the employees were calculated for administrative reasons on 23rd or 24th of every month and paid for 30 days. As the petitioner resigned, he was paid 7 days salary in excess amounting to Rs.3,443.95 p.a., A sum of Rs.6,456.20 and Rs.150/- were adjusted towards un-implemented punishment and excess paid pay. According to the respondents, the recovery of the amount is valid. 8. The petitioner is covered by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee Pension Fund Trust Rules(herein after referred to as "the Rules"). These rules were formulated with the concurrence of Worker's representatives, Officers of Transport Corporation and duly approved by Government. As per Rule 16(3) of the Rules, the past service rendered by an employee will be forfeited on his resignation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension and the same was informed to the petitioner by the impugned letter. 9. The second respondent further stated that as per the judgments of the Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp(2) SCC 29 (Union of India v. Brig P.K.Dutta (Retd), 1995 Supp(1) SCC 221 (Major (Retd.) Hari Chand Pahwa Vs.Union of India) and (2004) 13 SCC 662 (Prabhu Narain V. State of U.P.,) and the order of the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) 3715-3716 of 2001, 3717 of 2001, 3178 of 2001 and Writ Petition (Civil) 499 of 2000 in DTC Retired Employees' Association & Others, Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation, ETC and order in W.P.No.23913/2010 (K.Sivadurai-Vs.The MD, TNSTC, Salem & The Administrator, TNSTC EPFT and other) and order in W.P.(MD)No.40521 of 2005 (D.Vasanthakumar-Vs-(1) State of Tamil Nadu (2) MTC Ltd & Ors). The petitioner is not entitled to pension. The second respondent has extracted the relevant portion of this judgment in counter affidavit. The second respondent also stated that this issue was already decided by this Court in W.P(MD)No.5667 of 2005 (C.Rajakalyana Sundaram vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli and others). 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 11. I have perused the pleadings and materials on record and considered the arguments of the petitioner and the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had put in 21 years of unblemished service. Resignation also held to be retirement. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 11. I have perused the pleadings and materials on record and considered the arguments of the petitioner and the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had put in 21 years of unblemished service. Resignation also held to be retirement. Rule similar to 16(e) was considered by High Courts and pension was directed to be paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:- (a) 2003(2) LLJ 575 (Delhi) (Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce) b) judgment dated 29.01.2008 made in W.P.44724/202 Division Bench (D.Padmini vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras) c) Order dated 05.12.2013 made in W.P.No.5909 of 2013 of this Court (K.Raman Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government and others) 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per Rule 16(e) of the Rules, an employee, who had resigned service is not entitled to pension. The said Rules reads as follows:- "16(e) Forfeiture of Service on Resignation; Resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past services. Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service, if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, under Government Department/State public Sector Undertaking/ Board. In such case, the pensionary benefits shall be transferred to the new employer's pension fund/EP scheme 1995, as the case may be, and such benefits shall not be directly paid to the individual. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the orders of this Court dated 03.10.2012 made in W.P.No.618 of 2012. This Court considering the same issue, like Rule 16(e) of the above said Rule, held that an employee, who had resigned is not entitled to pension. The learned Judge referred the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 W.L.R.12 and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2005(8) SCC 325 (Union of India and others vs. Braj Nandan Singh). Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Apex Court Judgment, reads as follows:- "5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under; "26. Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Apex Court Judgment, reads as follows:- "5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under; "26. Forfeiture of service on resignation(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of service on resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule (2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule(1) the past service stands forfeited. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule(1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. The said rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement. 6. It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent." 15. Rule 16(e) of the Rules makes it clear that resignation would amounts to forfeiture of service, which disentitles the petitioner to get pension. 16. In view of the judgment reported in 2005(8) SCC 325 (Union of India and others vs. Braj Nandan Singh) I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to pension. 17. The respondents have recovered a sum of Rs.10,050/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner. Recovering a sum of Rs.6,456/- towards un-implemented punishment is illegal. The second respondent has not furnished details as to how they are entitled to recover the amounts of Rs.3,443.95 and Rs.150/-. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,050/- to the petitioner. 18. In the result, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,050/- to the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.