D. Raju. J,

.1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 (Presidential Ordinance No.2 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned ordinance’ and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned pension scheme’. Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1996, Central Act, 25 of 1996, hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned Act, and the Presidents’ assent was also accorded to the same on 18. 1996. Orders have been passed by this court to suitably amend the references in the nature of relief sought so as to substitute the name of the Act in places where the name of the impugned Ordinance, without driving the various petitioners to the necessity of filing formally individual petitions seeking for such amendment and thereupon the challenge stood modified as one directed against the Central Act, 25 of 1996 and the impugned pension scheme, thereunder. These writ petitions, except one or two have been invariably filed by various