The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of qualifying service under the pension rules, the application of estoppel and legitimate expectation in the context of voluntary retirement, and the impact of government letters on pension entitlement.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined as a driver in the Cheran Transport Corporation, on 24.04.1981, on daily wages. He was made permanent and granted the time scale of pay, from 01.11.1982. He was enrolled as a member of the provident fund, with effect from 01.11.1981. The provident fund contributions were also deducted from the salary of the petitioner, from the date of his enrollment as a member of the provident fund. On bifurcation of the Cheran Transport Corporation, he had become an employee of the Jeeva Transport Corporation. Finally, he was working at the Erode Town Branch-III of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region, Erode, the second respondent herein.

3. It has been further stated that, as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme formulated and agreed to by the parties concerned, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, and as per the circular issued by the second respondent, a workman, who had completed 15 years of qualifying service and completed 50 years of age, or a workman, who had completed 20 years of qualifying service, without reference to age, is eligible to go on voluntary retirement from service. The petitioner had completed more than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, he had made an application, dated 01.05.2012 requesting the third respondent to allow him to go on Voluntary Retirement. In response to the request made by the petitioner, the third respondent had accepted the application made by the petitioner, by an order, dated 25.07.2002, and he had been allowed to retire from service, with effect from 31.07.2002.

4. It has been further stated that as per the concluded settlement, dated 13.02.1999, all the State Owned Transport Corporations, including the second and the third respondents herein, had agreed to introduce and implement a pension scheme, to all the employees, who were in service, as on 31.08.1998, with effect from 01.09.1998. Pursuant to the said settlement, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules had been framed and it had been notified by the Government, on 15.12.2000. However, as per the settlement, the workman, who were on the rolls of the Corporation, as on 31.03.1998, had been paid the pension as per the pension rules, retrospectively, with effect from 01.09.1998, or from the date of their retirement.

5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had gone on voluntary retirement, from 31.07.2002, as he had been told that he would be entitled to the pensionary benefits. It has also been stated that the petitioner possessed 20 years of actual service, qualified service, as well as pensionable service, as per the Rule 16(a)(2) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules. Therefore, payment of pension had been sanctioned, in favour of the petitioner, by an order, dated 06.03.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner had been paid the pension, from 01.08.2002 to 30.11.2003. The second respondent had stopped the payment of pension, to the petitioner, from 01.12.2003, without issuing any prior notice. As the petitioner did not get any reply, from the third respondent, inspite of his request, he had obtained the necessary information by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The third respondent, by a letter, dated 09.08.2000, had informed the petitioner that, as per the clarification letter No.11785/D/2003-2, dated 08.09.2003, issued by the Government, clarifying the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to the payment of pension. In the said letter, it is stated that the qualifying service would have to be counted from the date of regular appointment of the employee and not from the date of his enrollment to the provident fund sch