JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. These petitions are filed by associations of employees of Government Organizations, as also individual employees raising a common question pertaining to Employees Pension Scheme framed under Section 6-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Various prayers have been made in these writ petitions, some of which have been given up, but the principal question that arises for consideration pertains to interpretation of Clause 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as it was notified on 16/11/1995, in respect of which a clarificatory letter dated 10/05/1999, was issued by the respondent Ministry of Labour and subsequently Notification dated 15/06/2007, was issued amending the said clause of the Scheme retrospectively.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid Pension Scheme framed on 16/11/1995, upon a proper interpretation, granted them and other such employees specific amounts of pension, taking into consideration past service, as well as actual service which was sought to be arbitrarily and illegally reduced by faulty interpretation on the part of the contesting respondents and the purported clarificatory amendment by way of Notification dated 15/06/2007. On this basis, the petitioners prayed for upholding the interpretation placed by them on the said unamended Pension Scheme as per Notification dated 16/11/1995, seeking quashing and setting aside of the letter of clarification dated 10/05/1999 issued by the Ministry of Labour, as also quashing and setting of the subsequent Notification dated 15/06/2007, which amended Clause 12 of the Scheme retrospectively.

4. It was submitted that such retrospective amendment could not take away the benefit that had already accrued to the petitioners and other such employees. On this basis, it was submitted that the pension payable to the petitioners be revised and arrears be paid with interest. As noted above, the petitioners gave up the prayer challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act and they also gave up the prayer for grant of additional service weightage/benefit of two years while calculating pensionable service, as admittedly such benefits were already granted to the petitioners and all eligible employees.

5. On 01/04/1997, by exercising power under the said Act, the Central Government framed Family Pension Scheme. In 1996, Sections 6-A and 6-B were added to the aforesaid Act to enable the Central Government to frame an Employees Pension Scheme to provide for superannuation pension, retiring pension and permanent total disablement pension. On 15/11/1995, the Central Government exercised power under Sections 6-A and 7 of the aforesaid Act to frame the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which came into effect from 15/11/1995. The aforesaid Scheme defined various expressions including actual service, past service and pensionable service. All employees who were existing members of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, were eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid pension scheme framed in 1995. The Family Pension Scheme, 1971, stood repealed and for an employee who was a Member of the said scheme, eligible service under the Pension Scheme, 1995, was number of years of service prior to 15/11/1995 + the years of service rendered after 15/11/1995, till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.

6. The entire controversy in the present petitions concerns interpretation of Clause 12 of the Pension Scheme, 1995. The contesting respondents placed a particular interpretation on the Pension Scheme, 1995 and payments were made accordingly, but, some employees had grievance that the interpretation placed by the contesting respondents on Clause 12 of the Pensi