Judgment:
S.D. Pandit, J.
1. The original respondent in S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988 has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned single Judge passed on 14/18th of July, 1995, 2nd, 3rd and 4th August 1995. Reported in 1995(2) GLR 1856: 1996(1) GLH 134. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988. The respondent No. 1 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Nivrut Karmachari Sangh hereinafter referred to as the 'Sangh' is an Association of retired employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who retired prior to 1-1-1983. The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad was having Contributory Provident Fund Scheme C.P.F. Scheme for its employees till the year 1983. By the Resolution No. 790 dated 10-6-1983 the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad introduced a pension scheme and said pension scheme was implemented from 1-1-1983. The employees of the Corporation who were members of C.P.F. Scheme were given option to either continue the said scheme or to switch over to the new pension scheme. As the Resolution of the Standing Committee passed on 10-6-1983 decided to implement the said pension scheme from 1-1-1983 giving benefits of the said scheme to all the employees who were in service as on 1-1-1983 even though they had retired between 1-1-1983 and the date of Resolution i.e., 10-6-1983. Therefore, respondent-Sangh made representation to the appellant-Corporation that benefits of the said pension scheme should be given to those employees who had retired prior to 1-1-1978. They had urged that the benefit of the said pension scheme should be given to the retirees who had retired within a period of five years prior to the date of implementation of the said pension scheme. But said request made by the original petitioners was not accepted by the Corporation, hence the respondents had filed the present petition being S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988.
2. The main contention of the original petitioners in S.C.A. No. 4028 of I988 is that the order passed by the appellant-Corporation not to give benefits of the pension scheme to the Municipal servants who have retired prior to 1-1-1983 was arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable. They contended that there is no reasonable ground or justification for denying the benefits of the pension scheme to the retirees who retired prior to 1-1-1983. They further contended that their claim is covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in All India Reserve Bank Reared Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 762 and therefore it was incumbent on the appellant-Corporation to have the same scheme benefiting those retirees who have retired within five years prior to 1-1-1983. According to them there was no justification in denying their claim and the denial of the pensionary benefits to them was arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. The learned single Judge accepted the claim of the respondents original petitioners that there was no justification in denying the pensionary benefits to the retirees who had retired prior to 1-1-1983. He also found that the claim of the petitioners is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association (supra). He found that the Resolution by which the pensionary benefits were denied to the retirees who retired prior to 1-1-1983 was arbitrary as well as unreasonable. He, therefore, allowed the petition by passing the following order:
The respondents are accordingly directed to evolve, prepare and finalise the Pension Scheme in accordance with law, for the persons belonging to the categories of the employees who had retired prior to 1-1-1983, as aforesaid, subject to the restriction of such period as they may consider appropriate, at the earliest possible opportunity but in no case later than the period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order may be directly served. After finalisation of this Pension Scheme all such employees who are retirees prior to 1-1-1983 and who are found to be covered by such Pension Scheme, may be called upon to exercise their option for pension within a period of one month thereafter and their pension cases may then be processed, finalised and pension be paid to them accordingly.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellant has come before this Court.
5. It is the main contention of the appellant that there is misreading of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of All India Reserved Bank Retired Officers Association (supra) and consequently misapplication of the same to the case in hand. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned single Judge ignored the fact that the Scheme which is introduced by the Corporation by the Resolution of the Standing Committee passed on 10-6-1983 giving benefit to the employees who were in service prior to 1-1-1983 and continued in service as on 1-1-1983, is the first Pension Scheme introduced by the appellant-Corporation and that it was not a new scheme making discrimination between the retirees governed by any earlier Pension Scheme. It is further contended that once the learned single Judge has found that fixing the date of 1-1-1983 for giving benefit of the said Pension Scheme was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the learned single Judge was not justified in allowing the petition filed by the respondent-petitioners. It is contended that the respondent-petitioners were governed by C.P.F Scheme and liability of the appellant-Corporation towards them had ceased when they retired and went away with the C.P.F. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the directions given by the learned single Judge are not at all tenable in law and that the learned single Judge was not at all justified in giving the same.
6. At the outset it must be stated that there is no dispute of the fact that the Resolution of the Standing Committee passed on 10-6-1983 was introducing for the first time a Pension Scheme for its employees. It is not at all in dispute that by the introduction of the said Resolution No. 790 dated 10-6-1983 for the first lime a Pension Scheme was introduced for the employees of the appellant-Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, till the date of introduction of the said scheme, the employees of the Municipal Corporation were governed by the C.P.F. Scheme. It is also an admitted fact that the members of the respondent-Association, the original petitioners are all retirees under the C.P.F. Scheme and all of them had retired prior to 1-1-1983. In the background of these undisputed facts, the controversy between the parties will have to be considered and decided.
7. It must be remembered that the pension retirees and C.P.F. retirees could not be treated as belonging to one homogeneous class. Consequently if any classification is made amongst them, then that would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under the C.P.F. Scheme, it is the employer's obligation to make contribution towards the employees' Contributory Provident Fund from the date he becomes member of the Scheme and that liability of the employer begins as soon as his account is opened and ends with his retirement when his right qua employer in respect of P.F. is finally crystallised and therefore thereafter no statutory obligation of the employer continues. On the other hand, under the Pension Scheme the obligation of the employer arises and it begins when the employees retire and continues till the death of the employees. Thus, on the retirement of an employee the employer's legal obligation under the C.P.F. Scheme ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins irrespective of the fact whether such obligation still remains merely an obligation is a different matter. The learned Advocate for the respondent Dr. Hurra urged before us that the appellant-Corporation's obligation towards the C.P.F. retirees is one and the same as its obligation towards the pension retirees. That may be morally so. But the legislation has not said so. To say so legally would amount to legislation by enlarging the circumference of the obligation and converting a moral obligation into a legal obligation. Bentham in his Theory of Legislation, Chapter XII, page 60 said:
Morality in general is the art of directing the actions of men in such a way as to produce the greatest possible sum of good. Legislation ought to have precisely the same object. But although these two arts, or rather sciences have the same end, they are different greatly in extent. All actions whether public or private fall under the jurisdiction of morals. It is a guide which leads the individual as it were by the hand through all the details of his life all his relations with his fellows. Legislation cannot do this and if it could, it ought not to exercise a continual interference and dictation over the conduct of men. Morality commands each individual to do all that is advantageous to the community, his own personal advantage included. But there are many acts useful to the community which legislation ought not to command. There are also many injurious actions which it ought not to forbid although morality dose so In a word legislation has the same centre with morals, but it has not the same circumference.
The classification between the C.P.F. retirees and pension retirees could not be said to be irrational or unreasonable in view of the nature of benefits received by the two and the obligations created by two Schemes, viz. C.P.F. Scheme and Pension Scheme. The liability of the employer to make contribution towards the C.P.F is a statutory liability. Similarly payment of pension is also a statutory liability of the employer when once Pension Scheme is accepted. But the nature of two liabilities are quite distinct and different and they could never be equated. In the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India : (1983)ILLJ104SC the Apex Court at page 138 of its judgment, after elaborate discussions in earlier paras, has summed up in para 29 as under:
The Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in lays of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender or rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus, the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison decree for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to all back upon.
On the basis of the subject-matter of the said case, the Union of India wanted to make a classification amongst the pension retirees and consequently said discrimination was struck down and all the pension retirees were given benefit of the said scheme. But all the pension retirees were given benefit of the scheme not from the date of their retirement but from the date of introduction of the said scheme, i.e., 1-4-1979. This decision of the Apex Court in Nakara's case (supra) was considered by the Apex Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Krishna Kumar v. Union of India : (1991)ILLJ191SC . In that case the Union of India had given an option to the Railway employees covered by P.F. Scheme to switch over to pension scheme with effect from the specified cut-off date. Specified date has been fixed in relation to the reason for giving option and only the employees who retired after the specified date and before and after the date of Notification were made eligible and that scheme was introduced by the respondent has been upheld by the Apex Court. In the said case, in Paras 28 and 30 after referring to the earlier decisions in Nakara's case (supra) it has been observed as under:
28. Thus the Court treated the pension retirees only as a homogeneous class. The P.F. retirees were not in mind. The Court also clearly observed that while so reading down it was not dealing with any fund and there was no question of the same cake being divided amongst larger number of pensioners than would have been under the notification with respect to the specified date. All the pensioners governed by 1972 Rules were treated as a class because payment of pension was a continuing obligation on the part of the State till the death of each of the pensioners and. unlike the case of Contributory Provident Fund there was no question of a fund in liberalising pension.
30. In Nakara : (1983)ILLJ104SC it was never held that both the pension retirees and the P.F. retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article 14. On the other hand the Court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a 'fund'. 1 he Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides the Government's obligation towards an employee under C.P.F. Scheme 10 give the matching contribution begins as soon as his account is opened and ends with his retirement when his rights qua the Government in respect of the Provident Fund is finally crystallised and thereafter no statutory obligation continues. Whether there is still remained a moral obligation is a different matter. On the other hand, under the Pension Scheme the Government's obligation does not begin until the employee retires when only it begins and it continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the retirement of an employee Government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to P.F. retirees. This being the legal position the rights of each individual P.F. retirees finally crystallised on his retirement where after no continuing obligation remained while on the other hand as regards pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death. The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in a rupee value and rising prices which considering the corpus already received by the P.F. retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was ratio decided in Nakara (supra) that the State's obligation towards its C.P.F. retirees must be decided question. Apart from Article 14 of the Constitution of India the policy of Courts is to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. When Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to certain state of facts it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases where facts are substantially the same. A deliberate and solemn decision of Court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case the necessary to its determination, is an authority or binding precedent in the same Court, or in other Courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy unless there are occasions when departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice. It should be invariably applied and should not ordinarily be departed from where decision is of long standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless consideration of public policy demands it. But in Nakara (supra), it was never required to be decided that all the retirees formed a class and no further classification was permissible.
8. In our opinion, the case before us is governed by the principles laid down in Krishna Kumar's case (supra). Having heard Dr. Mrs. Hurra and Mr. Tanna at length and after giving anxious consideration to the matter we have reached to the conclusion that there is misreading of the case of All India Reserved Bank of India Retired Officers Association (supra) by the learned single Judge as well as by the learned Advocate for the respondents-petitioners. In the case of All India Reserved Bank Retired Officers' Association (supra) the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India with the prior approval of the Central Government framed Regulations known as the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations. 1990 hereinafter called the Regulations. By the said Regulations brought into force with effect from 1st November 1990 a Pension Scheme was introduced in substitution of the existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The newly introduced Pension Scheme was made applicable to (i) all employees entering Bank service on or after 1st November 1990 but for them the C.P.F. Scheme did not exist, (2) the in-service employees, i.e., those employees who were actually in service at the dale of introduction of the scheme were given an option to opt out of the Pension Scheme and continue to be governed by the C.P.F. Scheme and (3) those who retired from Bank's service between 1st January 1986 and 1st November 1990. Thus, the Regulation 3(3) which deals with the applicability of the scheme to the said category of retired employees who were in service as on 1st January 1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before 1st November 1990, were provided right to exercise option to be governed by the pension regulations and refund within such period as may be specified, the Bank's contribution to provident fund including interest received by them from the bank together with simple interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment. The All India Reserved Bank Retired Officers Association had come before the Apex Court with the grievance that the provision of giving the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the retirees who had retired between 1-1-1986 to 1-11-1990 was amounting to creation of arbitrary classification between the retirees of the bank and it was their contention that giving of such benefit to only those retirees who had retired on or after 1-1-1986 and till 1-11-1990 and denying the benefits of the Regulations to the retirees who had retired prior to 1-1-1986 was a clear case of discrimination and said Act was arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and was contravening the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12 and 14 of the Constitution of all the members of the Association who had retired prior to 1-1-1986.
9. In that case, the Apex Court had found that before giving benefit of the said scheme to the employee who had retired prior to 1-11-1990, the date on which new regulation came into force, the implementation of Pension Scheme was in consideration from 1978 and non-availability of service record prior to 1978 and therefore, there was no discriminatory or arbitrary act in giving benefit to retirees from 1-1-1986 to 1-11-1990 and that it was not in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in that case, as a matter of fact the Regulations of 1990 which were to come into force on 1-11-1990 were making a discrimination between the retirees who had retired prior to the introduction of the scheme as the scheme was giving benefit to the retirees who had retired on or after 1-1-1986 and before 1-1-1986. But that is not the case before us. In the case before us, the scheme is introduced from 1-1-1983. The scheme is approved and enforced by the Resolution passed on 10-6-1983. By the Resolution dated 10-6-1983 said scheme is introduced from 1-1-1983 and there is no case of giving benefit of the scheme to any employee prior to cut-off date of 1-1-1983 on which the Scheme came in force. No employee who had retired prior to the date of introduction of the scheme on 1-1-1983 is given benefit. Whenever a new scheme is to be introduced by the employer he has to give a cut-off date and the introduction of the cut-off date could not be questioned unless it could be shown to be manifestly unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary. The learned single Judge after considering material on record has come to the conclusion that the cut-off date of 1-1-1983 was quite valid and legal and that the same could not be said to be either arbitrary or irrational or unreasonable That could be quite clear from the following observations in the concluding portion of Para 17 of his judgment:.Thus the Pension Scheme, which has been made applicable from 1-1-1983, does not deal with and has no room in itself so far as the employees, who had retired prior to 1-1-1983, are concerned and, therefore, in my considered opinion, so far as the choosing of the date of 1-1-1983 for making this Pension Scheme applicable with regard to the employees, who were already in service on 1-1-1983 and who were to join on and after 1-1-1983, are concerned, it cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable and, therefore it is held that taking up of the date 1-1-1983 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
10. Now, once this date of 1-1-1983 is found to be neither unreasonable nor irrational nor arbitrary, the question of making any discrimination by the appellant-respondent does not arise at all. It must be said that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the Pension Scheme was introduced for the first time on 1-1-1983. Prior to that date the employees of the appellant-Corporation were governed by C.P.F. Scheme. The members of the respondent-Association being members of the C.P.F. Scheme ceased to have any claim of any obligation from their employer on their retirement after they had taken away the amount payable to them under the C.P.F. Scheme. In the case of AH India Reserved Bank Retired Officer's Association (supra) the Apex Court has considered the effect of introducing a new scheme and the distinction to be drawn between the existing and new Scheme. In Para 10 of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed as under:
Nakara's judgment : (1983)ILLJ104SC has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme and a new scheme is revised or liberalised all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalisation and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touch-stone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalisation on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise and existing Pension Scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners it can ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme, in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved But in the ease of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right the employer can restrict the same, to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to he introduced, the extern of additional financial burden that it will throw on the capacity of the employer to bear the same the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement tin availability of records of every retiree, etc. etc. It must be realised that in the caw of an employee governed by the C.P.F. Scheme his relations with the employer came to an end on his retirement and receipt of the C.P.F. amount but in the ease of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. That is the reason why this Court in Nakara's case drew a distinction between liberalisation of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case of employees governed under the C.P.F. Scheme, since they had received the lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the Pension Scheme and those belonging to the C.P.F. Scheme has been rightly emphasised by this Court in Krishna's case : (1991)ILLJ191SC (supra)
Emphasis supplied
11. It seems that the learned Advocate for the original petitioners as well as the learned single Judge have not at all taken into consideration the above observations of the Apex Court and particularly the emphasised portion. They also did not take into consideration that in the case of All India Reserved Bank Retired Officers' Association (supra) the moot question was whether it was open to the employer to grant benefit of the Pension Scheme to one group of C.P.F. retirees while retiring from the Bank's service on or after 1-1-1986 and denying the same to others who had retired on or before 31-12-1985. At the cost of repetition it must be stated that in that case the new Regulations came into force from 1-11-1990 and by Clause 3(3) of the said Regulations benefits were given of the Pension Scheme which had come into force from 1-11-1990 even to the C.P.F. retirees who had retired on or after 1-1-1986 and before 1-11-1990. Therefore, there was definitely a classification between the C.P.F. retirees. But in the instant case, the Pension Scheme is introduced on 10-6-1983 and it was made applicable from 1-1-1983. There was no question of granting of any benefits to any C.P.F. retirees prior to the date the new Pension Scheme came into force on 1-1-1983. Thus there is no classification between C.P.F. retirees.
12. In the case of Stale of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj : AIR1991SC1743 , the Apex Court has once again made it quite clear that the C.P.F. retirees and the employees opting for Pension Scheme form two different classes. The C.P.F. retirees cannot as a matter of right switch over to the Pension Scheme and cannot claim and get the benefit granted to the Pension Scheme retirees. This principle has been again reaffirmed by the latest decision of the Apex Court in : AIR1997SC2607 in the case of Commander Head Quarters v. Capt. Biplabendra Chanda by laying down the following principles:
We are of the opinion that the ratio of D.S. Nakara : (1983)ILLJ104SC has no application here, D.S. Nakara prohibits discrimination between pensioners forming a single class and governed by the same Rules, h was held in that case that the dale specified in the liberalised Pension Rules as the cut-of dale was chosen arbitrarily. This is not the case here. No pension was granted to the respondent because he w as not eligible there for as per the Rules in force on the date of his retirement. The new and revised Rules it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the question whether the Rules that came into force with effect from January 1, 1986 were new Rules or merely revised or liberalised Rules which came into force with effect from January 1, 1986 were not given retrospective effect. The respondent cannot be made retrospectively eligible for pension by virtue of these Rules in such a case. This is not a case where discrimination is being made among pensioners who were similarly situated. Accepting the respondent's contention would have very curious consequences: even a person who had retired long earlier would equally become eligible for pension on the basis of the 1986 Rules. This cannot be.
13. Therefore, in view of the above consideration we are of the view that no discrimination is made by the appellant-Corporation in rejecting the petitioners' claim for giving them the benefit of the Pension Scheme. The respondents-petitioners were C.P.F. Scheme retirees and they have retired long back prior to the date of the introduction of the Pension Scheme. There is no obligation on the part of the appellant-Corporation towards the original petitioners-respondents before us. In our considered view the learned single Judge has not at all borne in mind the fact that the Pension Scheme was introduced for the first time by the Resolution dated 10-6-1983 and the said Scheme was made effective from 1-1-1983. He also did not take into consideration that the respondent-petitioners being C.P.F. Scheme retirees, there was no obligation existing in their favour to be fulfilled by the appellant-Corporation. Had he taken into consideration these aspects along with the finding that cut-off date 1-1-1983 was not either unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary then he would not have arrived to the conclusion to which he has arrived at. Consequently, he has committed an error in holding that the appellant-Corporation has acted arbitrarily in not framing the Pension Scheme to C.P.F. retirees and has resulted into his issuing directions to the appellant-Corporation to frame a scheme in favour of the respondents-petitioners.
14. Dr. (Ms.) Hurra learned Advocate for the respondents has cited before us the cases of R.L. Marwa v. Union of India and Ors. 1987 (4) SLR 782 Action Committee South East Railway Pensioners and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1991 (1) SLR 770 and a judgment of the learned single Judge delivered by one of us C.K. Thakker, J. in the case of Gujarat State Retired Professors Association v. State of Gujarat 1991 (1) GLH 159 : 1991 (1) GLR 168 If the facts of these 3 cases are considered then it would be quite clear that none of those cases is applicable to the facts before us. In all these 3 cases, the orders were issued giving benefits to some of the retirees up to a particular date and denying the same benefits to the retirees prior to that date without any rationale or reasoning. Therefore, in all those cases benefits of new policy to the pensioners from the dates of new policy on account of new orders were made available to all the retirees by holding that there was no justification in making classifications amongst the retirees. As stated above, at the costs of repetition, it must be stated that the appellant-Corporation has introduced for the first time a Pension Scheme which was made effective from 1-1-1983 and it was made applicable to all the persons who were in service on the date on which said new Pension Scheme was made effective. Consequent, there is no classification of any retirees by the appellant-Corporation. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no application of any of these cases to the fact of the case before us. Thus, we hold that present appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge will have to be quashed and set aside.
15. But before passing the final order, we would like to observe that in view of the decision taken under the Pension Act. as regards the revival of the portion of pension which was commuted by the pensioner at the time of receiving his pension on account of the survival of the pensioner after 15 years of the receipt of pension, the authorities under the Public Provident Fund Act are expected to consider in that line of giving some benefits to the retirees who happen to be members of C.P.F. Scheme after their survival of 15 years or thereabout in view of purchasing capacity of the money is diminishing day by day.
Thus we allow this appeal and quash and set aside the judgment and order passed in S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988 and dismiss the S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout.