ORDER

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, made on 19.4.1996 in LPA Nos. 2 and 3 of 1996.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellants have formulated a Scheme for voluntary retirement of the employees who have completed 45 years of age, effective from April 1, 1989 for a period of three months subject to the conditions specified in the scheme. The respondents had accepted the scheme and retired thereunder. Thereafter by Office Order No. 45/90 dated March 1, 1991 pay scales were revised in respect of existing employees and those who retired from time to time. In furtherance thereof, the respondents claimed and revision of the scale of pay was sought to be given effect by the office but the audit objection to the payment thereof was raised. Consequently, the respondents filed the writ petitions in the High Court and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and appeals were dismissed. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

4. Shri V. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, contends that the Scheme is a special scheme containing the mode of payment of compensation as calculated in terms of the Scheme. There is a distinction between those employees who retired voluntarily under the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules and those who retired under the Scheme. The revised scales of pay are applicable to those persons who are enumerated in Clause 2.2.2 of the office orders providing for Revision of Pay Scales. Proceedings dated March 1, 1991 refers to the candidates who retired voluntarily. Under Rule 24.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, the revision of the Provident Fund would be effected only in respect of those employees who retired under the special scheme; the scale and gratuity have to be revised in terms of the revised scales of pay but not the payment of the difference of pay. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that no distinction has been drawn in the proceedings dated March 1, 1991 between the employees who retired under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules or under the Special Scheme and those who retired voluntarily under the Scheme and are entitled to the same benefit of the revision of the pay scales as contemplated under the Office Order dated March 1, 1991. He also contends that even clause 2, 3 negatively puts that they are disentitled to the payment. The word salary is linked to the other components, namely, additional dearness allowance, ad hoc pay, additional pay etc. Therefore, the word, pay would include revised pay. Thereby the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scales.

5. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors.1. Therein the dispute relating to the revision of the pay was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Pending dispute, the wages were revised. Consequently, after the award was made, the revision of the wages was effected. The question was : whether the P.F. was required to be re-calculated on the basis of the revised scales? This Court had held that in view of the revision of the pay scales, the P.F. requires to be decided on the basis of the revised wages payable to the employees as was recalculated. The ratio therein has no application to the facts in these cases.

6. The question, therefore, is : whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the revised scales of pay under the Office Order No. 45/90 dated March 1, 1991? It is not in dispute that the respondents have not completed 50 years of age for voluntary retirement under clause (b) or Clause (c) of Rule 24.2 on attaining the age of superannuation. They contemplate thus :

"(b) An employee may at any time after completing the age of 50 years voluntarily retire by giving one month s notice in writing."

(c) The