JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul, represented by its General Manager, has preferred the instant appeal, challenging the order, made in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, by which, the Writ Court has held that the 1st respondent/V. Sivakumar, is entitled to pension from August 2003. The Writ Court has directed the appellant corporation to continue to pay pension, and further directed that arrears of pension from August 2003 be paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order made in the writ petition. Writ Court has further directed that pension be continuously paid to the 1st respondent from April 2011. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor in transport corporation on 06.08.1980. His services were regularised on 29.08.1983. He has completed 20 years of service. While so, in the year 2001, he suffered brain stroke and took treatment. His right hand and right leg were affected and hence, he was unable to move. 3. On receipt of information of the respondent's illness, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Ltd., Dindigul, has referred him to Medical Board, to find out his suitability, to the post of Conductor. The Medical Board, after examining him, by report dated 21.02.2001, found that he was unfit to work as Conductor. Thereafter, the corporation issued a show cause notice, dated 18.04.2001, asking the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The corporation has discharged the petitioner from service, by an order, dated 29.05.2001, without providing him, an alternative employment, as per Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner did not pursue his right for an alternate employment. 4. When the petitioner was in service, by a settlement dated 13.02.1999 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all the State owned Transport Corporations including the appellant, agreed to introduce and implement, a pension scheme, as a retirement benefit with effect from 01.09.1998. As per rule 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Rules, every workman, who was in service, as on 01.09.1998, would automatically become a member of the pension scheme. As per rule 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Rules, every workman, who was in service, as on 01.09.1998, would automatically become a member of the pension scheme. It is the case of the petitioner, he has to be considered as a member of the pension scheme and having served for more than 20 years, he is entitled to pension. Accordingly, till the month of July 2003, appellant paid pension, but it was abruptly stopped without any reason. In the abovesaid circumstances, the 1st respondent has filed W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying pension of the petitioner from August 2003 is illegal and consequently to direct the appellant to continue to pay him, pension with arrears from August 2003 with 18% interest. 5. Opposing the prayer sought for, appellant has contended that pension scheme was implemented with effect from 01.09.1998. However, the same was implemented with certain terms and conditions, wherein, it has been stated that those who were on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998 and continued as such, are not eligible for pension. According to them, there was an audit objection and thus, the pension paid to the 1st respondent was stopped. 6. Adverting to the above contentions and after going through the material on record, the Writ Court has found that the 1st respondent had worked for more than 20 years. On the objection that the 1st respondent was not entitled to pension, on the ground that he was on leave on loss of pay on 01.09.1998, the crucial date on which, employees of the transport corporation were brought under pension scheme, pursuant to a settlement dated 13.02.1999 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Writ Court, at paragraph 6 in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, ordered as follows:- ''6. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to any pension, since he was on leave on loss of pay on 01.09.1998, the crucial date, which the employees of the Transport Corporation are eligible for pension. However, in the case on hand, it has to be seen that the petitioner suffered from brain stroke in the year 2001 and continuously, was taking treatment. However, in the case on hand, it has to be seen that the petitioner suffered from brain stroke in the year 2001 and continuously, was taking treatment. In fact, the first respondent sent him to the Medical Board to find out the suitability of the petitioner to perform his duties as Conductor. By a report dated 21.02.2001, the Medical Board found that the petitioner is unable to work as a Conductor. Thereupon, the first respondent, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 18.04.2001, discharged the petitioner from service by an order dated 29.05.2001. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who was receiving the pension upto July, 2003, cannot be denied pension, citing the audit objection. One more aspect that has to be seen is that no orders have been passed by the first respondent, refusing pension to the petitioner citing reason that the petitioner was on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998, the crucial date for payment of pension. Even assuming that there was an audit objection, the petitioner should have been put on notice about the same and thereupon, orders would have been passed refusing the pension to the petitioner. But, in the case on hand, neither the petitioner was put on notice about the audit objection nor an order was passed intimating that the pension will not be paid to him from August, 2003.'' 7. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has completed 20 years of service. He was paid pension upto July 2003. As rightly observed by the Writ Court, solely based on the audit objection, pension has been abruptly stopped, without any notice to the 1st respondent. On the aspect as to whether an employee, who had rendered 20 years of service, can be denied pension, the Writ Court at paragraph 7 in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, ordered as hereunder:- ''7. The petitioner, who was served in the Transport Corporation for more than 20 years and suddenly affected with brain stroke, cannot be denied of pension. He has served the Transport Corporation for more than 20 years and it would be uncharitable to deny him the pension due to him. In fact, it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that only from 2001, the petitioner could not serve the respondent Corporation as a conductor, in view of his illness. He has served the Transport Corporation for more than 20 years and it would be uncharitable to deny him the pension due to him. In fact, it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that only from 2001, the petitioner could not serve the respondent Corporation as a conductor, in view of his illness. The same is not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the Transport Corporation.'' 8. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr. K. Mahendran, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.9228/D/2005 dated 06.07.2005, employees who were on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998 and continued leave without joining duty are not eligible for pension. It is also his contention that though pension was stopped in the year 2003, 1st respondent has approached this Court only in the year 2009. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as the 1st respondent was on leave on loss of pay, on the crucial date, namely, 01.09.1998, audit objection was raised and therefore, there is no manifest error in discontinuing payment of pension. According to him, instructions of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.9228/D/2005, dated 06.07.2005, that employees who were on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998, and continued to be leave on loss of pay without rejoining duty, are not eligible for pension, have not been taken note of. However, he has not denied the fact that the 1st respondent had worked in transport corporation for 20 years. 10. Per contra, based on Letter No.11352/D/2005-10 dated 07.11.2007 of the Secretary to Government, Transport (D) Department, Chennai-9, Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that Government have issued instructions, directing Managing Directors of MTC and SETC, to sanction family pension in respect of death cases, who have not performed duty even for a single day on or after 01.09.1998, due to sickness under proper medical intimation. He also submitted that Government in the said letter dated 07.11.2007, has also requested the Managing Directors of other State Transport Undertakings, to consider similar cases, on the same analogy, subject to the condition that the deceased employee was on roll as on 01.09.1998. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. He also submitted that Government in the said letter dated 07.11.2007, has also requested the Managing Directors of other State Transport Undertakings, to consider similar cases, on the same analogy, subject to the condition that the deceased employee was on roll as on 01.09.1998. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Material on record discloses that by a settlement dated 13.02.1999 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all the State owned Transport Corporations including the appellant, agreed to introduce and implement a pension scheme, as a retirement benefit with effect from 01.09.1998. Admittedly, respondent No.1 was on the rolls of the transport corporation as on 01.09.1998. As per rule 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Rules, every workman, who was in service as on 01.09.1998, would automatically become a member of the pension scheme. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Writ Court, 1st respondent was a member of the pension scheme. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.9228/D/2005 dated 06.07.2005, to the effect that employees, who were on leave on loss of pay, as on 01.09.1998, and continued leave on loss of pay, without rejoining duty, are not eligible for pension, contention has been made that the 1st respondent is not eligible for pension, as he was on leave on loss of pay. Such a contention cannot be countenanced, for the reasons contained in the order made by the Writ Court. 12. The next contention of the appellant, is that though pension was stopped in the year 2003, respondent No.1 has approached this Court, only in the year 2009 and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have allowed the prayer sought for, also cannot be countenanced, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein at paragraph 7m the Apex Court held as follows:- ''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. 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 re-opening 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 re-fixation 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. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. 13. Yet another objection raised by the appellant is that there was audit objection, that the 1st respondent who was on leave on loss of pay as on 01.09.1998 and continued as such, as not eligible for pension and therefore, pension was stopped. Material on record discloses that pension which was paid upto July 2003, has been stopped abruptly, without any reason. There is also no material to indicate that whether copy of the audit objection was furnished to respondent No.1, so as to enable him to putforth his objections. Violation of principles of natural justice is per se apparent. In this context, this Court deems it fit to consider a decision of this Court in C. Perumal Vs. There is also no material to indicate that whether copy of the audit objection was furnished to respondent No.1, so as to enable him to putforth his objections. Violation of principles of natural justice is per se apparent. In this context, this Court deems it fit to consider a decision of this Court in C. Perumal Vs. Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai and others, reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 289 , wherein, this Court has held that refixation of scale of pay and the consequential recovery, based on audit objections, without issuing a show cause notice to the individual is violative of the Principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside the order of recovery, on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Respondent No.1 had intimated his illness to the Corporation and thereafter, he was referred to Medical Board, to find out his suitability to the post of Conductor. Having found that he was unfit to work as Conductor, on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, dated 21.02.2001, the Corporation had issued a show cause notice, dated 18.04.2001, to show cause, as to why he should not be discharged from service, on medical grounds. Based on the above, vide order, dated 29.05.2001, he has been discharged from service, without providing an alternate employment, as per Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. As per the statutory provisions, the appellant ought to have provided an alternate employment to the 1st respondent, thus there is a failure in this regard, on the part of the appellant. 15. Reading of Letter No.11352/D/2005-10, dated 07.11.2007 of the Secretary to Government, Transport (D) Department, Chennai-9, shows that based on the audit observation made by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, in respect of certain death cases, the Transport Corporations of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., and State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu Limited, have stopped family pension to the legal heirs of the deceased (6 cases in MTC and one case in SETC), due to the reason that they have not performed even a single duty on or after 01.09.1998, but they were on the rolls of the Corporations from 01.09.1998 till their death, under proper medical intimation for their leave. Referring to rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, the Government in the abovesaid letter, have ordered as hereunder:- ''2. I am to state that as per Rule 8 of TNSTCEPF Rules, the pension scheme is applicable to all the employees who are on rolls of the Corporation as on 1.9.1998. In as much as the employees in the instant cases have been on rolls on 1.9.98, the Government after careful examination direct the Managing Directors of MTC and SETC to sanction family pension in respect of death cases, who have not performed duty even for a single day on or after 1.9.98 due to sickness under proper medical intimation as was done in the case of Tmt.Kokila W/o. late Thiru Nagapushsnam vide Government letter first cited. 3. The Managing Directors of other STUs may also be requested to consider similar cases on the same analogy, subject to the condition that the deceased employee was on roll as on 1.9.98.'' 16. Thus, it is clear from the abovesaid Government order, suffice if the employee was on the rolls of the corporation as on 01.09.1998, the date on which, the pension scheme came to be introduced and implemented and that there is no necessity that the employee should perform duty on or after 01.09.1998 due to sickness under proper medical intimation. Material on record discloses that respondent No.1 was sick, due to stroke and his case was referred to medical board. All the grounds of challenge made by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., do not merit any consideration, warranting interference with the impugned order. 17. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The directions issued by the Writ Court in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, be implemented. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.2952 of 2016 is closed.