Koshy, J.

The writ petitioner in this case is a retired employee of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the first respondent. He retired from service after continuous service of more than 37 years. The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme (PRBS) was promulgated with effect from 4.1990, which is an optional scheme. The petitioner became a member of the PRBS and remitted contributions accordingly. The petitioner retired on 30.4.1998. After his retirement with effect from 30.6.1998 another scheme was formulated. There is variance of rate of contribution. The only dispute is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the old scheme as he retired when the old scheme was in force.

2. Thepetitioner filed O.P.No.18359 of 2001 for getting the retrial benefits and a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 110.2001 allowed the Original Petition along with another Original Petition O.P.No.18358 of 2001 filed by another similarly placed employees (Ext.P5 judgment). As the direction was not complied with a C.C.C. No.183 of 2002 was filed, which was closed on 4.2002 with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedies. After filing the Contempt of Court Case, part of the retiral benefits were paid to him. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present Original Petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.P.No.14614 of 2002 and a learned single Judge decided that he is entitled to the benefit of the scheme existing at the time of his retirement following the decision in another judgment (O.P.No.14551 of 2002).

3. Meanwhile, against both the judgments (O.P.Nos.14551 and 14614 of 2002), appeals were filed by the ONGC. But the appeal filed in this case not was taken up due to certain defects regarding the service of notice. The appeal, W.A.No.21 of 2004 filed against the judgment in O.P.No.14551 of 2002 came up before the Division Bench and the matter was considered in detail and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 11.2004 (Annexure A7). Identical contentions raised in the Original Petition were raised in the above appeal and 1990 scheme was considered by the Division Bench and it is held as follows:

“5. Paragraph 7 of the 1990 scheme, a copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel before us during the course of hearing, provides as under:

“Trustees may, however, review the availability of funds annually or at such other intervals as may be fixed by the Trustees to decide whether any revision in the maximum entitlement and/or rate of employees’ contribution under the Scheme is warranted.

A perusal of the above provision clearly shows that it may be possible for the Trustees to revise the rates at which the contribution has to be made by the employees or the payment has to be made by the employer. However, this provision does not permit the Trusted to review the Scheme with retrospective effect”.

The Division Bench also held as follows:

“6. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the respondent had retired from service on April 30, 1996. On retirement, his entitlement to various benefits had matured. It had to be determined I accordance with the provisions of the Scheme as it existed on that date. This is precisely what has been held by the learned single Judge. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Judge”.

In paragraph 8, it is further held as follows:

“8. A perusal of clause 7 as noticed above clearly shows that the Trustees have not been empowered to review the Scheme or to revise it to the disadvantage of the employees with retrospective effect. Thus, the plea that the respondent was bound by the revised Scheme cannot be sustained. The accrued rights cannot be taken away by passing an executive order with retrospective effect. No provision has been brought to our notice which may empower the Trustees to vary the terms of the Scheme so as to deprive the employees of the accrued rights”.

But it is held that the judgment will not be binding in all cases in future. In the writ Appe