JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.03.2015 in Letter No.44/P2/TNSTCEPFT/2015-1463 of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner full monthly pension with effect from 01.04.2013 every month, together with arrears and other consequential benefits and interest at the rate of 18%, award costs and render justice.) The lis on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.03.2015, declining to grant full monthly pension with effect from 01.04.2013 along with the consequential benefits. Facts of the case: 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper/Cleaner (Trainee) for three years from 31.03.1997 on a consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month for the first year, at the rate of Rs.650/- for the second year and at the rate of Rs.850/- for the third year respectively by an order dated 09.10.1997. The Provident Fund was deducted from the salary of the writ petitioner from the year 1996 onwards. 3. The services of the writ petitioner was regularised in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay by an order dated 07.09.2006. The time scale of pay of Rs.4270-60-5710 was granted from 01.07.2006. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.03.2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The petitioner states that she has completed 17 years and 3 months of qualifying services and her pensionable services have to be taken into consideration from the date on which she became a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. Thus, the petitioner is eligible for pension. The respondents paid the gratuity to the writ petitioner. However, pension and other terminal benefits have been denied to the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner made a representation on 05.03.2015 to settle the pension from 01.04.2013. The 2nd respondent rejected the same vide proceedings dated 24.03.2015 on the ground that the services of the writ petitioner was regularised with effect from 01.08.2006 and therefore, she had completed seven years of service and for sanctioning of pension, the minimum qualifying services would be ten years as per the Pension Rules. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that she had not completed ten years of minimum pensionable service. The definition of “Actual Service” as per Rule 2(p)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'TNSTCEPF' Rules) stipulates, all the employees, who became the member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the State Transport Undertakings (STU) is also eligible and the period of services are to be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable services. The “Pensionable Service” defined under Rule (2)(v) of TNSTCEPF Rules denotes that the “Pensionable Service” means the service rendered by the member for which the contributions have been received. In the present case, the contributions are received from the writ petitioner from the year 1996 onwards. Therefore, the entire consolidated pay services rendered till the date of regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner are also to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of the pensionable services. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is an eligible member as defined under Rule 2(q) of the TNSTCEPF Rules. She was an existing member as contemplated under the said Rules. Therefore, the petitioner, who was on the rolls as on 01.09.1998 is to be included as an eligible member under the said Rules and consequently, all pension benefits under the said Rules are to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. 7. It is contended that Rule 13 of the TNSTCEPF Rules contemplates, “Determination of Eligible Services”. Since the petitioner is an eligible member, her services rendered on consolidated pay is also to be taken into account for calculation of pensionable services. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service are in violation of the provisions of the pension scheme and thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the pensionary benefits under Pension Rules are to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. 8. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service are in violation of the provisions of the pension scheme and thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the pensionary benefits under Pension Rules are to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the Rules 8, 10(a) read with Rule 2(p)(iii), 2(o), 2(v), 2(r) and read with Rule 13 (b), 14 (a) and 16 (a)(i), the “Actual service” would commence from the date of enrolment to the Provident Fund and not from the date of regularisation as contended by the 2nd respondent / Trust. 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of P.Krishnasamy Vs. Deputy Secretary to Government, Transport Department, reported in [2013-IV-LLJ-139 (Mad)], in paragraph 33, it is held that, without reference to the above Government letter dated 08.09.2003, the actual service shall have to be calculated from the date of enrolment to the Provident Fund and not from the date of regularisation and issued direction to the respondents to sanction pension along with 9% interest. 10. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court also followed the judgment in W.P.No.9815 of 2013 dated 13.06.2016. The Rule 2 (p)(iii) of the Pension Rule has been considered by the High Court and held that the date of enrolment to the Provident Fund is to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the pensionable services of an employee. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the option given to the employees, states that though option was called for to opt either to remain in the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS) 1995 with the post retirement benefit or to commend the TNSTCE Pension Scheme, which came into effect from 01.09.1998. Since majority of the employees have opted to commend the TNSTCE Pension Scheme, the said scheme was made compulsory to all the employees, who were on the rolls as on 01.09.1998 and to all the employees, who have joined the Transport Corporation after 01.09.1998. 12. The 1st respondent objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the services of the writ petitioner was regularised only on 07.09.2006. 12. The 1st respondent objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the services of the writ petitioner was regularised only on 07.09.2006. The benefits as per the rules had already been settled including the gratuity on the retirement of the writ petitioner on 31.03.2013. The employee and employer contribution of Rs.2,74,784/- is lying with the 1st respondent. However, the petitioner has not submitted any application for the disbursement of Provident Fund lying in her account. The 1st respondent states that by G.O.Ms.No.157, Labour and Employment Department dated 27.09.2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu had excluded the Tamil Nadu State Transport undertaking from the purview of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 with effect from 01.09.1998. The workmen and the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporations had entered into a Section 12(3) settlement under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, signed on 13.02.1999 in and by which a new pension scheme was framed for the employees of the Transport Corporation. 13. As per the scheme administered by the 2nd respondent / Trust, the employees, who were on the rolls of STU's as on 31.08.1998 had to exercise their option either to join on the new pension scheme administered by the 2nd respondent or to continue to be a member than prevailing Employee Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The petitioner does not come under either of the category. She was then only working as consolidated pay employee and as such she could not have exercised any option to join present pension scheme under which now she is claiming pension. The petitioner has not made any affirmative statement in this regard in this reply. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such prayed for in the writ petition. 14. The 1st respondent states that the petitioner does not qualify as a member under the Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Trust. Since the 1st respondent had regularised the services of the writ petitioner only on 07.09.2006, she is entitled for Contributory Pension Scheme. As a matter of fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 13.04.2006 issued to the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu has clarified this aspect. The said position has been reiterated in Government letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed to the 2nd respondent. Thus, the 2nd respondent as such is not liable to pay any pension as per the scheme. 15. As a matter of fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 13.04.2006 issued to the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu has clarified this aspect. The said position has been reiterated in Government letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed to the 2nd respondent. Thus, the 2nd respondent as such is not liable to pay any pension as per the scheme. 15. The 2nd respondent also opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that the 2nd respondent has not received any contribution from the petitioner or on her behalf towards the scheme administered as per the TNSTCEPF Rules. 16. Rule 2(i) of the TNSTCEPF Rules defines a member under the scheme to be a regular employee under Tamil Nadu State Undertakings. Rule 2(p) defines “Actual Service” for calculating the pensionable service. In the said Rule, Sub-Clause (i) states about employees taken over at the time of nationalisation in this rule too services of the employees are reckoned from the date of the individual becoming regular employee. The contention made by the petitioner relying upon Rule 2(p)(iii), more particularly, “the date of regular employment or becoming member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the STU’s will be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable service” for seeking relief in the present writ petition is fallacious. The disjunctive word “or” used in Rule 2(p) (iii) ought not to be literally read and interpreted. The said word has to be interpreted taking into consideration the meaning assigned and to be clear intention of the scheme administered by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust. If done so, it would be crystal clear that only the regular employee of the STU could be treated as member of the Pension Trust. 17. The 2nd respondent has scrupulously followed the clarifications issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 13.04.2006 to the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu on this aspect. The same has been reiterated in Government letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed to the 2nd respondent too. It is stated that the petitioner, who claims pension under the scheme currently administered by the 2nd respondent Trust has not affirmatively averred in her affidavit that she had exercised her option to become a member of the pension scheme under which she is claiming relief. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the pension under the currently administered by this respondent. 18. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the pension under the currently administered by this respondent. 18. The petitioner claims to have become Casual Labour under the 1st respondent on 21.12.1996 and upgraded to consolidated pay on 31.07.1997. However, admittedly her services were regularised only on 07.09.2006. The petitioner was brought on the rolls of the 1st respondent / Corporation and appointed to a post only on 07.09.2006. Accordingly, her pensionable service has to be calculated only from the date, she had became regular employee and therefore, she is not eligible to claim the pension under the Pension Scheme. 19. To differentiate the terms “Recruitment” and “Appointment”, the 2nd respondent relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Prafulla Kumar Swain Vs. Prakash Chandra Misra and Others reported in [1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 181], followed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu and other Vs. P.Hepzi Vimalabai reported in [1994-2-L.W.399]. Analysis:      20. Considering the arguments as advanced between the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, let us consider the scope and application of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee's Pension Fund Rules. 21. In the context of the provisions enumerated in the TNSTCEPF Rules, the eligibility of an employee is to be considered to form an opinion regarding the entitlement by applying the 'Golden Rule' of interpretation. 22. The Statutes are to be interpreted according to grammatical and ordinary sense of the word in grammatical or liberal meaning unmindful of consequences of such interpretation. It was the predominant method of reading Statutes. More often than not, such grammatical and literal interpretation leads to unjust results, which the Legislature never intended. The ‘Golden Rule’ of giving undue importance to grammatical and literal meaning of late gave place to ‘rule of legislative intent’. The world over, the principle of interpretation according to the legislative intent is accepted to be more logical. When the law to be applied in a given case prescribes interpretation of Statute, the Court has to ascertain the facts and then interpret the law to apply to such facts. Interpretation cannot be in a vacuum or in relation to hypothetical facts. When the law to be applied in a given case prescribes interpretation of Statute, the Court has to ascertain the facts and then interpret the law to apply to such facts. Interpretation cannot be in a vacuum or in relation to hypothetical facts. It is the function of the legislature to say what shall be the law and it is only the Court to say what the law is. 23. That exactly is the principles of ‘Golden Rule’ interpretation enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut reported in [ (2007) 3 SCC 700 ], the Apex Court of India referred the case of Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), held as follows: “18. During the last several years, the 'golden rule' has been given a goby. We now look for the 'intention' of the legislature or the 'purpose' of the statute. First we examine the words of the statute. If the words are precise and cover the situation on hand, we do not go further. We expound those words in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. But if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we deem it as our paramount duty to put upon the language of the legislature rational meaning. We then examine every word, every section and every provision. We examine the Act as a whole. We examine the necessity which gave rise to the Act. We took at the mischief's which the legislature intended to redress. We look at the whole situation and not just one-to-one relation. We will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. We will not view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force behind. We will consider the provisions in the circumstances to which they owe their origin. We will consider the provisions to ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid undesirable consequences.” 24. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us now attempt to interpret the subject Rules, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Pension Fund Rules. As per Rule 2(c) “Beneficiary” shall include a member as defined under the rules. “Member” is defined in Rule 2 (i) shall be a regular employee, who is eligible to be a member under the rules. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us now attempt to interpret the subject Rules, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Pension Fund Rules. As per Rule 2(c) “Beneficiary” shall include a member as defined under the rules. “Member” is defined in Rule 2 (i) shall be a regular employee, who is eligible to be a member under the rules. Therefore, “Member” shall mean a regular employee, who must be eligible to be a member under the rules. Twin conditions are fixed to become a member under the TNSTCEPF Rules. Firstly, a regular employee is a member under Rule 2 (i) of TNSTCEPF Rules and such member must be eligible to be a member under the said Rules. Therefore, an employee shall not only be a member, but also to be an eligible member under the Pension Rules. 25. Let us consider the definition of “Eligible Members” under Rule 2 (q) means an employee, who is eligible to join the Pension Fund of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Fund. Therefore, an employee, who is eligible to join the Pension Fund scheme became an “Eligible Member” under the Rule 2 (q) of the TNSTCEPF Rules. 26. The above definitions contemplated under the TNSTCEPF Rules unambiguously stipulates that a “Member” shall mean regular employee alone. A regular employee is an employee, who is working in a sanctioned post in a time scale of pay, whose services were regularised as per the Service Rules in force. A consolidated pay salary employee or the daily wage employee or a casual employee cannot be construed as a regular employee within the definition of a “Member” under Rule 2 (i) of the Pension Rules. 27. It is needless to state that once an employee became a “Member” within the definition of Rule 2 (i) of the Pension Rules, then alone the question of calculation of services would arise. Even then, let us consider, whether there is any scope for including the employee, who paid the Provident Fund and served as consolidated pay employee or casual daily wage employee. It is not in dispute that temporary and casual employees and the consolidated pay employees pay Provident Fund from their salary. The said Provident Fund is collected under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 6 (A) of the said Act contemplates Employees’ Pension Schemes. It is not in dispute that temporary and casual employees and the consolidated pay employees pay Provident Fund from their salary. The said Provident Fund is collected under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 6 (A) of the said Act contemplates Employees’ Pension Schemes. Therefore, the daily wage employees and consolidated pay salary employees are provided with the benefit of the employees Pension Scheme under Rule 6 (A) of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 28. The question arises, whether the services of the consolidated pay salary employees, and casual, daily wage services rendered by the employees are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services for bringing them under the New Pension Scheme by the 2nd respondent / Trust. The contention of the writ petitioner in this regard is that the counting of the petitioner’s services only from her date of regularisation is erroneous. The services of the writ petitioner are to be counted from the date of enrolment as a member of the Pension Fund Scheme for calculating pensionable services under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules. In this context, the petitioner relied on Rule 2 (p) (iii) of the Pension Rules. 29. Rule 2(o) defines “Contributory Service” means the period of “Actual Service” rendered by the member for which the contributions to the Fund have been received. Rule 2 (p) defines, “Actual Service” and Sub-Clause (i) to Rule 2 (p) stipulates that “In respect of employees taken over at the time of nationalisation during 1972, the date of the individual becoming regular employee with the taken over operators will be reckoned for calculation of pensionable service, provided they have been absorbed with continuity of service”. Rule 2 (p)(ii) stipulates that “In respect of all other employees the date of regular employment are becoming the members of the Employment Provident Fund in the STU will be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable service”. 30. Therefore, “Contributory Service” means the period of “Actual Service” rendered by a member for which the contributions to the fund have to be received. Thus, if “Contributory Services” are to be reckoned for calculation of qualifying services, then the period of “Actual Services” rendered by the member and, for such services, the contributions could have been received by the 2nd respondent / Trust. Thus, if “Contributory Services” are to be reckoned for calculation of qualifying services, then the period of “Actual Services” rendered by the member and, for such services, the contributions could have been received by the 2nd respondent / Trust. The criteria’s contemplated under Rule 2 (o) are unambiguous. Definition of “Contributory Service” is the period of “Actual Service” rendered and the contributions for the “Actual Services” must have been received by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of considering the “Contributory Services” of the employees. 31. Rule 2 (p) (i) defines “Actual Services” means “In respect of employees taken over at the time of nationalisation during 1972, the date of the individual becoming regular employee”. Thus, the employee must have been taken over at the time of nationalisation during the year 1972, and he must be a regular employee. Then alone the said “Actual Service” will be considered as “Contributory Service” under Rule 2 (o). Pertinently, Rule 2 (o) and Rule 2 (p) are to be read together for the purpose of understanding the definition of “Contributory Service”, which shall be taken into consideration, in the context of “Actual Service”. 32. Importantly, the petitioner relied on Rule 2 (p) (iii) of the TNSTCEPF Rules, which stipulates that “the date of regular employment or becoming member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the STU’s will be reckoned for the calculation of pensionable service”. 33. In this context, Rule of Ejusdem Generis is relevant and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited Vs. Shankarprasad reported in [Manu/SC/0405/1999], held as under: “When particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. This rule which is known as the rule of ejusdem generis reflects an attempt “to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous.” 34. Significantly Sub-Clause (iii) to Rule 2 (p) contemplates all other employees the date of regular employment is to be taken into consideration or becoming member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the STU. Significantly Sub-Clause (iii) to Rule 2 (p) contemplates all other employees the date of regular employment is to be taken into consideration or becoming member of the Employee's Provident Fund in the STU. The word “or” disjunctive word cannot be used for the purpose of defeating the entire purpose and object of the Pension Rules. No doubt, the literal meaning would provide a meaning that an employee becoming the member of the Employees Provident Fund in the STU, the said services to be reckoned for calculation of pensionable service. However, such employee must be a member and a regular employee within the Rules. 35. Any phraseology cannot be interpreted in isolation or in counter to the other provisions of the Act. Cogent understanding of the entire purpose and object of the pension Rules is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of forming a final opinion. Therefore, the first phraseology in Rule 2 (p) (iii) of TNSTCEPF Rules unambiguously stipulates that all other employees, the date of regular employment or regular employee. The second phraseology “or” becoming the member of the Employees Provident Fund in the STU would include the regular employees, who were the member of the Employees Provident Fund in the STU. The legislative intention is to ensure that all the regular employees and also the regular employees, who became the member of the Employees Provident Fund in the STU’s are covered under the Pension Rules. However, the Rule does not intend, so as to include daily wage casual employees and the consolidated salary employees, who became the member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was clarified by the 2nd respondent that they have not received any contributions from the writ petitioner. Therefore, the Pension Rules did not include the casual daily wage employees and the consolidated pay salary employees. 36. Rule 2 (q) defines “Eligible Members” means an employee who is eligible to join the Pension Fund of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund (TNSTCEPF)”. Therefore, an “Eligible member” must be eligible to join the Pension Fund. The eligibility criteria has been unambiguously stipulated in Rule 2 (i) as “Member” shall mean a regular employee. 36. Rule 2 (q) defines “Eligible Members” means an employee who is eligible to join the Pension Fund of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund (TNSTCEPF)”. Therefore, an “Eligible member” must be eligible to join the Pension Fund. The eligibility criteria has been unambiguously stipulated in Rule 2 (i) as “Member” shall mean a regular employee. Even Rule 2 (i) contemplates that “In respect of employees taken over at the time of nationalisation during, 1972, the date of the individual becoming regular employee with the taken over operators will be reckoned”. Thus, the intention of the Rule makers are unambiguous that a member must be a regular employee and even for deciding the “Actual Service” and for calculating the pensionable service, the employee must be a regular employee and the services rendered must be regular services. 37. Again, Rule 2 (r) defines “Existing Member” means an existing employee, who is a member of the Employee's Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or in regular roll of the STU's or institutions authorised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, as far as the employees of the Transport undertakings are concerned, a regular employee in the regular roll alone will be considered as “Existing Member” under Rule 2 (r) of the Pension Fund Rules. 38. Rule 2 (v) defines “Pensionable Services” rendered by a member for which the contributions has been received. 39. Cogent reading and understanding of the definitions elaborately enumerated in various Sub-Clauses under Rule 2 of the Pension Fund Rules, it is unambiguous that a “Member” must be a regular employee and the contentions of the petitioner that Rule 2 (p)(iii) makes the temporary services of the petitioner as eligible, cannot be considered, since the said Clause cannot be read in isolation with the other Clauses, which defines the “Member”, “Eligible Member”, “Existing Member”, Contributory Services” etc. Collective reading of the entire definitions and Clauses under Rule 2 of TNSTCEPF Rules would clarify that only a regular employee is eligible to become a member regarding the regular services rendered by such employee, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the pensionable services. 40. Part III of the Pension Fund Rules deals with “Membership”. 40. Part III of the Pension Fund Rules deals with “Membership”. Rule 8 contemplates “The Pension Scheme is applicable to all the employees of the establishments, who are on rolls as on 01.09.1998 or employed after that date and also members of the Employee's Provident Fund Scheme”. Under Rule 8, all the employees of the establishments, who all are on rolls as on 01.09.1998, indicates that, the employee must be in regular roll as on 01.09.1998. The employees employed after 01.09.1998 also eligible to become a Member under the Pension Scheme, if they are the members of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, and they are regular employees. 41. Part IV deals with “Contributions”. The initial contribution of the Pension Fund Trust are also enumerated. 42. In view of the definition of “Member”, “Contributory Service”, “Actual Service”, “Eligible Members”, “Existing Members”, “Pensionable Service” etc., this Court without any hesitation, formed an opinion that the regular employees in the regular roll are eligible for availing the benefit of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme. The employees engaged on daily wage basis, consolidated pay and temporary services, who all are not regular employees of the Transport Corporations are not entitled to become a member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme. 43. When the consolidated pay employees, daily wage employees or temporary employees are not eligible to become the members of the New Pension Fund Scheme, their temporary services cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying services along with their regular services. 44. That apart, Rule 8 (a), which was inserted by way of an amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.10, Transport (D) Department, dated 18.02.2005 contemplates that “However, this Pension Scheme is not applicable to the employees recruited in the State Transport Undertakings on or after 01.04.2003 since such employees are covered under Contributory Pension Scheme”. In the present case, the writ petitioner was regularly appointed and her services were regularised admittedly on 07.09.2006. Therefore, the writ petitioner is eligible to become the member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme only with effect from the date of regular appointment / regularisation on 07.09.2006. In the present case, the writ petitioner was regularly appointed and her services were regularised admittedly on 07.09.2006. Therefore, the writ petitioner is eligible to become the member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme only with effect from the date of regular appointment / regularisation on 07.09.2006. Since the writ petitioner was regularly appointed after 01.04.2003, which is the cut-off date, she is covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme and therefore, not entitled to avail the benefit of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme. As far as the Pension Fund Contribution of the writ petitioner is concerned, she is entitled to get back by filing an appropriate application before the competent authorities, which is not disputed by the respondents. 45. In respect of the orders relied on by the petitioner, the interpretation of the Pension Fund Rules were not undertaken by the Court. When the Rules with its object and interpretation in entirety were not considered by the Courts in earlier judgments, there is no impediment for this Court to consider the entire provisions for the purpose of understanding the scope of Pension Fund Rules and therefore, the said judgments are of no avail to the writ petitioner. The judgments passed without considering the scope of the Rules by applying the principles of 'Golden Rule' of interpretation, then the said judgments of the Courts need not be followed as precedent, so as to grant the relief or to decline the relief. Thus, those judgments have denuded to loose its status as precedent as various provisions of the Pension Fund Rules were not taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility of an employee to become a member of the Pension Fund Rules. 46. In the above context, the following Rulings are relevant: (a) The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Sericulture Department Vs. K.Kumar reported in [2015 (4) CTC 241], considered the binding nature of the orders, relying on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, which reads as under: ''34. It is true that consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. K.Kumar reported in [2015 (4) CTC 241], considered the binding nature of the orders, relying on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, which reads as under: ''34. It is true that consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees obtained orders at the stage of admission, on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interest. 35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak [ AIR 1988 SC 1531 ]. It was observed in the said decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court." The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by writ petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by getting those orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special Grades. Hence, the second contention of the writ petitioners is also liable to be rejected. 41. In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court, relying upon its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. 41. In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court, relying upon its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal.'' (b) The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ], held as follows: “It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provisions does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, is some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief / benefits inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order”. Conclusion: 47. The petitioner became eligible to be a member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme only with effect from her date of regular appointment / regularisation on 07.09.2006. The petitioner admittedly retired from service on 31.03.2013. Conclusion: 47. The petitioner became eligible to be a member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme only with effect from her date of regular appointment / regularisation on 07.09.2006. The petitioner admittedly retired from service on 31.03.2013. Therefore, she had not completed the qualifying services of ten years for the purpose of getting superannuation pension under Rule 16 (a) (i) of the Pension Fund Rules and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition. 48. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.