JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the respondents in refusing to count the petitioner temporary service from 07.12.1971 to 31.12.1972 along with his regular service from 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1982 for calculating his qualifying pensionable service and thereby rejecting his claim for pension on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 10 years of qualifying service as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioner service from the date of his initial appointment to calculate his qualifying pensionable service and to pay the petitioner pension with effect from 01.01.1988 with all arrears and consequential benefits, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and award cost.) The writ of declaration has been filed to declare the action of the respondents declining the claim of the writ petitioner to count the temporary services from 07.12.1971 to 31.12.1972 along with his regular services from 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1982 for calculating the qualifying pensionable service is null and void. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Department as Driver on 07.12.1971. The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee, despite the fact that the post of Driver was permanent. The writ petitioner was sponsored through the District Employment Exchange and accordingly appointed. On completion of 240 days of service as Driver, he was made as permanent employee and brought under the time scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1973. 3. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.378, dated 10.04.1975 stating that the absorbed employees into the newly formed Transport Corporations would be entitled for pension based on the services rendered by them in the State Transport Department. The petitioner was sent on deputation initially to the newly formed Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation and he was posted at Thiruvannamalai Depot. There was a cut off date dispute regarding the absorption in the newly formed Transport Corporations and the issues were settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M.Ananchu Asari [ (2003) 10 SCC 503 ] held that the Government is bound to pay pension based on the assurance given by them in G.O.Ms.No.378. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself fixed the cut off date for absorption as 01.04.1982. 4. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M.Ananchu Asari [ (2003) 10 SCC 503 ] held that the Government is bound to pay pension based on the assurance given by them in G.O.Ms.No.378. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself fixed the cut off date for absorption as 01.04.1982. However, the monetary benefits were directed to be granted from 01.01.1988. The Review Petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the said order, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport Department, dated 27.05.2005, implementing the orders of the Supreme Court of India. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted an application for payment of pension with all relevant documents. However, the second respondent informed the writ petitioner that he had not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying services for the purpose of grant of monthly pension. The petitioner submitted a representation pointing out that the petitioner is eligible for counting of 50% of the daily rated services for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services for grant of pension. However, the second respondent not considered the same. 6. The petitioner on medical grounds voluntarily retired from service in the year 1992. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that the amended Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for counting of 50% of the daily wage services, cannot be granted. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the issue regarding the cut off date and grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was settled by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 01.02.2005 and the Review Application filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu was also dismissed thereafter. Thus, the Government of Tamil Nadu implemented the orders of the Supreme Court in G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport Department, dated 27.05.2005 and based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted an application to grant pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 with reference to the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. 8. Thus, the Government of Tamil Nadu implemented the orders of the Supreme Court in G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport Department, dated 27.05.2005 and based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted an application to grant pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 with reference to the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. 8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.L.Patil (Dead) through LRs vs. State of Goa and Another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 685]. The issue dealt with by the Apex Court, in the case cited supra, was with reference to the date of superannuation whether it is 58 or 60 years. The High Court has refused arrears of pension and has observed that the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st of January, 2020. Challenging the said order, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court. 9. However, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different and distinct. The very relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition is to count the temporary services of the writ petitioner from 07.12.1971 to 31.12.1972 along with the regular services. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable as the facts are entirely different. 10. The representation of the writ petitioner was not considered initially on the ground that he has not completed the minimum qualifying services of 10 years. Again the petitioner approached the Authorities for counting 50% of the services as daily rated employee and if those services are taken into consideration, then the petitioner would be eligible for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The second respondent informed the petitioner that he is not eligible to avail the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance Department, dated 25.08.2008 for the purpose of counting 50% of the services. Thus the petitioner approached this Court. 11. The respondents have objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner joined as a Driver on 07.12.1971 and his services were regularised on 01.01.1973. He was voluntarily retired from service on 22.08.1992. Thus the petitioner approached this Court. 11. The respondents have objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner joined as a Driver on 07.12.1971 and his services were regularised on 01.01.1973. He was voluntarily retired from service on 22.08.1992. The details of the petitioner's service in the erstwhile Transport Department and the Corporation are set out as under:- The total length of the petitioner's service specifically indicating the breakup details with regard to non-qualifying service and net qualifying service is as follow:- D M Y Cut off date as per G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 27.05.2005 01.04.1982 Date of absorption 01.01.1973 Cut off date 31.03.1982 Non-qualifying days 30.02.0911.00.00 19.02.09 12. Consequent to the formation of the various Transport Corporations, the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Transport Department employees were absorbed permanently in Transport Corporation with effect from 01.05.1975 / 16.01.1975. In G.O.Ms.No.1028, Transport Department, dated 23.09.1985, orders were passed on the issues relating to Pension, Gratuity, Family Pension, Leave etc. It has also been ordered therein that the employee absorbed in State Transport Undertakings will cease to be a Government Servant and therefore, Government liability for Family Pension will also cease. 13. The petitioner was joined as Driver on daily paid basis on 07.02.1971 in Tamil Nadu State Transport Department and absorbed as permanent employee. On 01.01.1973, he was transferred permanently in the then Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd., now called Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram. The petitioner had been settled with all benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 14. As per G.O.Ms.No.378, Finance (F.R) Department, dated 18.04.1975, the petitioner is not eligible to get Tamil Nadu State Transport Department pension, since he had not rendered more than 10 years of service in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, at the time of his permanent absorption in State Transport Undertakings on 16.01.1975 to earn pension. There was no such Scheme of Pension in State Transport Undertakings. Later as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport (RW) Department, dated 27.05.2005 by extending the pensionary benefits to the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees, who have put in less than 10 years of Government Service in Tamil Nadu State Transport Department on the date of their permanent absorption in State Transport Undertakings. As per this Government Order, under para-5, the Government fix the cut off date as 01.04.1982 in respect of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department employees, who had put in less than 10 years of Government Service as on their permanent absorption in State Transport Undertakings only for the limited purpose of assessing the requisite length of qualifying of 10 years to earn pension. 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that G.O.Ms.No.408, was issued on 25.08.2008 and long before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.408, granting the benefit of counting of 50% of services, the petitioner was absorbed in the newly created Transport Corporation and voluntarily retired from service. 16. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, the cut off date as per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005 is 01.04.1982. As per Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, one should have completed 10 years of net qualifying services in Government as on the date of his permanent absorption in the Transport Corporation to become eligible for pension. Therefore, it is needless to state that the 10 years of qualifying services are to be completed on or before the cut off date i.e., 01.04.1982. It is not in dispute between the parties that the eligibility criteria of 10 years is contemplated under Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for grant of pension. Further it is not disputed that the cut off date of 01.04.1982 is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the minimum qualifying services of 10 years. In the case of the writ petitioner, he has completed 9 years and 2 months before the cut off date as per the details furnished in the aforementioned paragraphs. 17. The claim of the writ petitioner is that 50% of the daily wage services are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the qualifying services. The said amendment to the Pension Rules was introduced only in the year 2008 through G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance Department, dated 25.08.2008. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the said Government Order cannot be applied in view of the fact that he was absorbed in the Transport Corporations long before the issuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.408 and the issues relating to the cut off date and reckoning the qualifying services were settled by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 01.02.2005 itself. Therefore, the facts as on the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court and with reference to the implementation order of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport Department, dated 27.05.2005, are to be considered. The subsequent amendments granting some benefits to the other Government employees, cannot be extended in respect of the issues pertaining to the erstwhile Transport Department employees, whose rights were crystallised through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the year 2005 itself. 18. When the petitioner is not falling under the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as he had not completed 10 years of service before the cut off date of 01.04.1982, the benefit of counting of 50% services, which was issued by way of amending the rule in the year 2008, cannot be applied in respect of employees of the erstwhile Transport Department with reference to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.42. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding fixation of cut off date, which is not in dispute and the Government implemented the said judgment vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the scope of G.O.Ms.No.408 of the year 2008, was not considered. Therefore, those judgments cannot be applied with reference to the claim of the writ petitioner for counting of 50% of the daily rated services based on G.O.Ms.No.408, dated 25.08.2008. 20. The rights of the erstwhile Transport Department employees were crystallised even before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.408, dated 25.08.2008. When the rights are crystallised and the Government also implemented the Supreme Court order vide its G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005, the petitioner cannot cite the subsequent amendment and seek pension with reference to his services rendered in the erstwhile Transport Corporation in between the years 1973 to 1992. The Rules cannot be enforced in such a manner, which would cause greater prejudice to the State Exchequer. In the event of expanding the amended rule in such a manner, it will result in huge financial implications which also to be taken into consideration. 21. The Rules cannot be enforced in such a manner, which would cause greater prejudice to the State Exchequer. In the event of expanding the amended rule in such a manner, it will result in huge financial implications which also to be taken into consideration. 21. The rights of the parties once crystallised with reference to the services and the cut off date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, then the same cannot be expanded by the Courts creating further financial implications to the State Exchequer for which the employees are not eligible otherwise in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court and as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in force during the relevant point of time and also in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 27.05.2005. 22. In view of the fact that the scope of the amendment to the Pension Rules, which was made after crystallisation of the rights of the employees with reference to the Supreme Court judgment, cannot be extended by the High Court by exercising its powers of judicial review as such retrospective applications are to be granted only by way of a policy decision by the Government of Tamil Nadu and in the present case, the Government of Tamil Nadu has rejected the claim of the erstwhile Transport Department employees through its letter No.1232/Poo.Va/Pa.Mu. Na.Pa/2/2011 dated 19.01.2012. 23. When the Government clarified that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.408, dated 25.08.2008, is not applicable to the erstwhile Transport Department employees, whose rights were decided with reference to the cut off date fixed by the Supreme Court of India i.e., 01.04.1982, the Court cannot expand the scope of the policy, which would result in huge financial implications. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.