( 1 ) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be proper to refer to the decision of the Karataka High Court in the matter of YR Shenoy v. Syndicate Bank, reported in 2003 II LLJ page 977, para 11 and 12 as the same are important in view of the facts of the present case. Therefore, the observations made by the Karnataka High COurt in the said decisions are reproduced as under:"11. Re point No. (i): Right to gratuity was the subject matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court. The principle deducted from those decisions can be broadly stated as under:the fundamental principle underlying gratuity is that it is a retirement benefit for long service as a provision for old age. Demands of social security and social justice made it necessary to provide for payment of gratuity. On the enactment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 a statutory liability was cast on the employer to pay gratuity. Pension and gratuity coupled with contributory Provident Fund are well recognized retiral benefits. Pension and gratuity are both retiral benefits ensuring that the workman who has spent his useful span of life in rendering service and who never got a living wage, which would have enabled him to save for a rainy day, should not be reduced to destitution and penury in his old age. As a return of long service he should be assured social security to some extent in the form of either pension, gratuity or provident fund whichever retiral benefit is operative in the establishment. It must not be forgotten that it is not a gratuitous payment, it has to be earned by long and continuous service. A scheme of gratuity and a scheme of pension have much in common. Gratuity is a lump sum payment while pension is a periodic payment of a stated sum. Undoubtedly both have to be earned by long and continuous service. If gratuity is a retiral benefit and can be earned as a matter of right on fulfilling the conditions subject to which it is earned, any rule conferring absolute discretion not testable on reason, justice or fair play which denies the same must be treated as utterly arbitrary and unreasonable and discarded. Rules for payment of gratuity became incorporated in the Standing Orders and thereby acquired the status of statutory condition of service, an arbitrary denial referable to whim, fancy or sweet will of the employer must be rejected as arbitrary. The claim to absolute discretion not to pay gratuity even when it is earned is a hangover of the laissez fair days and utterly inconsistent with the modern notions of fair industrial relations and, therefore, it must be rejected as ineffective and hence unenforceable. 12. Therefore, gratuity is a statutory right to be earned by long and continuous service, which is payable as a retiral benefit, a definite sum as lumpsum payment on retirement. It is a right if accrued cannot be taken away by agreement between the parties. Amount payable is also definite, by agreement between the parties it cannot be reduced, but it could be enhanced. "

( 2 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi for the petitioners in both the groups; Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Board and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned GP for respondent NO. 2 in both the groups. The petitioners in these two groups were working with the respondent No. 1 Board and they retired from service after reaching the age of superannuation as per the Board Rules. All the petitioners in these two groups are receiving their pensionary benefits from the respondent Board, means, all of them are entitled to get pension from the respondent Board. However, the question is as to whether the petitioners who have retired prior to 1. 1. 1996 are entitled for the revision of pension on the basis of the recommendations made by the 5th Pay Commission or not. The petitioners in the second group of petitions have retired subsequent to 1. 1. 1996 and prior to 4th May, 1998. The question in respect of the said petitioners is