Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-Leave granted.

2. The law on the common issue that arises for decision in these cases is well settled and, therefore, we do not propose to write a detailed judgment. The common issue that arises in all these cases can be broadly stated as follows:-

“Whether the appellant-Board has acted illegally or contrary to law in introducing a pension scheme to the employees, who were hitherto not governed by such pension scheme, prospectively from 1.7.1986. To put it differently, whether the employees (respondents) who were all retired before 1.7.86 after receiving all retiral benefits available to them as per the law existing on their dates of retirement, can compel the appellant-Board to extend the benefit of newly introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect.”

3. Let us now give facts in brief to appreciate the common issue raised in these cases.

The appellant-Board was brought into existence on 1.7.1957 in accord­ance with Section 5 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). The employees of the Electricity Department of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu were transferred to the appellant-Board on and from 1.7.1957 and the erstwhile employees of the Goverment became the employees of the Board. It is not in dispute that the employees (respondents), termed as workmen in Regular Work Charged Establishment, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on the date when they were transferred from Electricity Department of Tamil Nadu to the appellant-Board. It is also not in dispute that on their retirement prior to 1.7.1986 all the employees (respondents), who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, had received all retiral benefits in full settlement.

4. After the formation of the appellant-Board, separate proceedings were issued in all matters connected with it by virtue of powers conferred under Section 79 of the Act including pension regulations after taking into account the financial commitment involved in adopting Government orders in the matter of terminal benefits as well as the service conditions of the employees. It appears that the Gov­ernment of Tamil Nadu in G.O.M.S. No. 797 dated 30.6.1969 introduced pension scheme to its employees who were not governed earlier by such pension scheme. However, the appellant-Board had not adopted the orders issued by the Government in G.O. No. 797 dated 30.6.1969. It is a fact that the employees (respondents) were making representations to the appellant-Board from time to time to extend the benefit of pension scheme to those who were hitherto governed by contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is also a fact that the appellant-Board acted upon such representation and it had to comply with certain formalities before introducing the pension scheme. After getting exemptions from the purview of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 from the Central Government, the appellant-Board could introduce the pension scheme w.e.f. 1.7.1986. The retired employees (respondents), aggrieved by the prospective introduction of the pension scheme from 1.7.1986, moved the High Court to quash that part of the Board’s proceedings in BP MS (FB) No. 5 dated 26.6.1986 which fixed the date of the application of the pro­ceedings on or after 1.7.1986.

5. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in his elaborate judgment found that the date fixed as 1.7.1986 is neither arbitrary nor offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The retired employees (respondents) moved the Division Bench of the High Court. The learned Judges accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that the ratio laid down by this court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India1 may not apply to the facts of the case. However, the Division Bench held that the retired employees (respondents) are entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme though they had retire