MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                   [2015] 1 S.C.R. 611

               MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & ORS.                       A
                             v.
                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
           (Transfer Case (Civil) No. 48 of 2010)
                    JANUARY 07, 2015
                                                              B
     [ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

    Service Law: Retirement - Voluntary Retirement Scheme
- Whether after acceptance of voluntary retirement under the
2004 Scheme, such retired employees would be entitled to C
get benefit of the revision of pay which was retrospectively
given from 1st August 2002 by Notification dated 21.12.2005
- Held: VRS Scheme 2004 was framed by employer to
reduce burden of salary and establishment expenditure -
Employees who opted under the Scheme retired upon taking o
some special additional benefits - If benefit of revision of pay
scale is given to person who had already opted under the
Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the
Scheme was framed would be frustrated - Therefore,
employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme E
would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of
pay effected under Notification dated 21.12.2005.
    Disposing of the Transfer cases and the Special
Leave Petition, the Court
      HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the Scheme was          F
  framed by the Employers to see that their expenditure in
  long term is decreased by making one-time payment of
  additional amount to the employees opting for retirement
, under the Scheme. With this intention, the employers had
  floated the. Scheme and several employees of the            G
  Employers had taken due advantage of the Scheme by
  opting under the Scheme and by taking not only ex gratia
  payment of salary but also additional pension, which

                            611                               H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   they would not have received otherwise. The employees
    opting for retirement under the Scheme were to get
    benefit of additional five years of service while calculating
    the pension. The said benefit was substantial and the said
    benefit along with benefit of ex gratia payment, tempted
B   number of employees who opted under the Scheme and
    retired happily after getting all retiral benefits. [Para 34]
    [623-H; 624-A-D]
         2. According to clause 5(2) of the Scheme, ex gratia
    amount was to be paid to the concerned employees on
C the date of his/her being relieved and it was clarified that
    in case of wage revision effected from a date prior to the
    date on which the said Scheme had been notified in the
    Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the purpose
    of payment of ex gratia would be allowed. Meaning
D thereby, the employees who had opted under the
    Scheme and retired from service were entitled only to
    revision of ex gratia amount upon retrospective increase
    in the salary. The intention was to give benefit only in
    relation to ex gratia amount and not in relation to the
E pension. Had the intention been to give benefit of
    additional pension also, the said fact would have been
    incorporated in the said clause. In normal circumstances
    when an employee retires from service, his relationship
    with the employer comes to an end. It is also a well
F settled legal position that after retirement, normally no
    disciplinary action can be initiated against the concerned
    employee. Similarly, the retired employee would not have
    any right of redetermination of his pension but only in
    cases where salary is revised with retrospective effect,
G the retired employee gets the benefit of additional
  . pension and that too in certain cases. In the instant case,
    it is crystal clear that the employees had already opted
    under the Scheme -under a specially made Scheme,
    which was framed only with an intention to reduce future
    expenditure of the Employers. If all these benefits are
H given to the persons who had already opted under the
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                 613


Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the         A
Scheme had been framed would be frustrated. [Paras 36,
37] [624-F-H; 625-A-E]
     3. The employees who retired under the Scheme form
a separate class of employees who were given many
benefits, which are not given to employees retiring in B
normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no
stretch of imagination it can be said that all those who
retired under the Scheme and those who retired in normal
course, are similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there
is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in C
the instant case. Similarly, there is no violation of the
principle of equal pay for equal work. True, that those
who retired under the Scheme did the same work which
was being done by those who retired in normal course,
but one cannot forget the fact that those who retired D
under the Scheme got substantially higher retirement
benefits. [Paras 38, 39] [625-F-H; 626-A]
     National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh 2014
(1) SCALE 320 - referred to.
                                                                E
                  Case Law Reference :
    2014 (1) SCALE 320        referred to             Para 24
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Case (CIVIL)
No. 48 of 2010.
                                                                F
    Under Article 139 of the Constitution of India.
                            WITH
T.C. (C) Nos. 45, 47, 46 and 49 of 2010, T.C. (C) Nos. 7, 6,
19, 23, 20, 21, 82 and 83 of 2011 and T.C. (C) Nos. 27 and      G
28 of 2014 & SLP (C) No. 10903 of 2011.
    V. Giri, T. R. Andhyarujina, Jaideep Gupta, Gautam
Narayan, V. Parthiban, T. V. S. Raghuvendra Sreeyas,
Mubashir Mushtaq, Nikhil Nayyar, Tatini Basu, Rashmi Raj,
Juno Rahman, Jyoti Mendiratta, Abhay Kumar, Rishabh             H
    614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   Sancheti (For T. Mahipal), Dinesh Mathur, Jyoti Dastidar (For
    R. P. Goyal), A. Radhakrishnan, B. Sunita, Sushma Suri, B. K.
    Prasad for the Appearing Parties.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B         ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. A common legal issue was involved
    in several writ petitions and appeals pending before different
    High Courts and therefore, transfer petitions had been filed in
    this Court so that all pending cases can be transferred to and
    decided by this Court.
C        2. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of
    the facts of the cases, this Court found that substantial questions
    of general importance were involved in the said cases and
    therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if all the cases
    are heard and decided together and therefore, all these cases
o   have been transferred to this Court.
         3. The issue involved in all these cases is with regard to
    retiral benefits to be given to a special class of retired
    employees of five nationalized general insurance companies.
    The undisputed facts and legal issues involved in all these
E   cases are as under:
         The insurance companies, who have been described
    hereinafter as "the Employers" were in financial difficulties and
    so as to cut their expenditure, the Employers framed a scheme
    named "General Insurance Employees Special Voluntary
F   Retirement Scheme, 2004" (hereinafter referred to as "the
    Scheme"), so as to enable its employees to retire prematurely
    on certain conditions with some special benefits.
         4. Normally a person gets pension when he retires from
G   service after putting in the period of pensionable service as per
    his service conditions. All the employees, in the instant case,
    would be eligible to get pension if they retire from service after
    putting in 20 years of service.
         5. As stated hereinabove, so as to curtail the expenditure,
H   it was decided to reduce the number of employees and in
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                  615
              [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
pursuance of the Scheme, offers were invited from the            A'
employees who wanted to opt for voluntary retirement even
before completion of the period of normal pensionable service.

      6. As per the provisions of the Scheme, it was open to the
employees to opt for retirement even on completion of 10 years
                                                                 8
of qualifying service, provided they had attained the age of 40
years. The Scheme had a limited duration of 60 days, during
which the employees had to decide whether they wanted to opt
for the Scheme. The employees opting for retirement under the
Scheme were also to be given some additional benefits,
namely, payment of 60 days' salary for each completed year C
of their service or salary for the number of months of their
remaining service, whichever was less. So far as determination
of the amount of pension is concerned, as per the Scheme, five
years' service was to be notionally added to the service of the
retiring employees and on that basis pension was to be paid D
to them.

     7. In addition to the aforestated benefits, the retiring
employees were also to get usual benefits under the provisions
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the amount of            E
Provident Fund, which they were otherwise entitled to.

     8. Thus, the employees opting for voluntary retirement
under the Scheme were to get benefit of ex gratia amount as
well as benefit of additional pension which would result from
the addition of the notional five years' service.                 F

      9. Several employees took benefit under the Scheme and
retired in pursuance of the aforestated Scheme in 2004.

     10. After retirement of the aforestated employees, the G
Employers revised pay scales of their employees under
Notification dated 21st December, 2005 giving benefit of
revision of pay retrospectively with effect from 1st August, 2002,
provided the employees were in service on or after 1st August,
2002.
                                                                   H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R ...


A         11. The issue involved in all these cases is whether after
    acceptance of voluntary retirement under the Scheme, such
    retired employees would be entitled to get benefit of the revision
    of pay, which was retrospectively given from 1st August, 2002
    under the Notification dated 21st December, 2005, which was
B   called the "General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales
    and Other Conditions of Officers) Second Amendment, 2005
    and hereinafter referred to as "the Notification".

         12. The Employers denied the benefit of the said
C   Notification or retrospective increase in the salary to the
    employees who had retired under the Scheme, whereas the
    said retired employees claimed that they should be given
    benefit of the retrospective increase in their pay and their
    pension should be revised because they were in service on 1st
    August, 2002 and had retired only in or after 2004.
D
         13. The High Court of Gujarat took a view that the
    employees who had retired under the Scheme were not entitled
    to any benefit of pay rise under the Notification as they had
    already retired in 2004 or 2005 and at the time when the salary
E   had been revised, they had already severed the relationship
    with the Employers and were no more in employment.

         14. On the other hand, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
    held that the employees who had retired under the Scheme
    were entitled to the benefit of pay revision which had taken
F   place by virtue of the Notification and therefore, their pension
    should be revised after considering revision in their pay.

          15. Before dealing with the issue, it would be apposite to
    find out the conditions on which the employees were made to
G   retire voluntarily under the Scheme. Under the Scheme, the
    employees were to get certain special benefits as they were
    to retire even before completion of the requisite period of
    service, which would have enabled them to get pension and the
    employees were also to get so~e special benefits like ex gratia
H
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                    617
              [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
payment of salary and additional weightage in calculation of         A
pension payable to them.

     16. So far as the Scheme is concerned, the relevant
portion, with which we are concerned for the purpose of
deciding these cases, is as under:                                   8
    "3. Eligibility:-

    (1) All permanent full time officers will be eligible to seek
    special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided
    they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10          C
    years of qualifying service as on the date of Notification.

    (2) An employee who is under suspension or against
    whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or
    contemplated shall not be eligible to opt for the scheme;
                                                                     D
    Provided that the case of an officer who is under
    suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings is
    pending or contemplated may be considered by the Board
    of the Company concerned having regard to the facts and
    circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the         E
    Board shall be final.

     4. Period of operation:-

     This Scheme shall remain open·for a period of sixty days
    from the date of notification in the Official Gazette. The       F
    company shall, however, have the right to prematurely close
    the scheme at any time if it thinks fit and its decision shall
    be final.

     5. Amount of ex-gratia:-                                        G

    (1) An employee seeking Special Voluntary Retirement
    under this Scheme shall be entitled to lower of the ex-gratia
    amount as given below, namely:-
                                                                     H
    618        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         Sixty days salary for each completed year of service,

          OR

          Salary for the number of months of remaining service.

B          (2) The ex-gratia shall be computed on the basis of his/
          her salary as on the date of relieving. In case wage revision
          is effected from a date prior to the date of this notification
          in the Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the
          purpose of payment of ex-gratia will be allowed.
c
          6. Other Benefits:-

          (1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be
          eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
          amount mentioned in para 5, namely:-
D
          (a) Provident Fund,

          (b) gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
          1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation
          Scheme, as the case may be;
E
          (c) pension (including comml,lted value of pension) as per
          General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995,
          if eligible. However, the additional notional benefit of the
          five years of added service as stipulated in para 30 of the
F         said Pension Scheme shall not be admissible for the
          purpose of determining the quantum of pension and
          commutation of pension.

          (d) Leave encashment
G          (2) An employee who is opting for the scheme shall not
          be entitled to avail Leave Travel Subsidy and also
          encashment of leave while in service during the period of
          sixty days from the date of notification of this scheme."

H         17. The Notification dated 21st December, 2005, by virtue
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                  619
              [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
of which pay scales and other terms and conditions of service      A
of certain employees had been revised with retrospective effect
contained the following clauses which are necessary for our
purpose:

    "1.
                                                                   B
    (1) This Scheme may be called the General Insurance
    (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other
    conditions of service of Supervisory, Clerical and
    Subordinate Staff) Second Amendment Scheme 2005.
                                                                   c
    (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Scheme, this
    Scheme shall be deemed to have come into force on the
    1st day of August, 2002.

    (3) This Scheme shall be applicable to all employees who
    were in whole-time service in Supervisory, Clerical and        D
    Sub-ordinate Staff cadres of the Corporation or Company
    as on, or after, the 1st day of August, 2002:

    Provided that the employees whose resignations had been
    accepted or whose services had been terminated during          E
    the period from the ·1st day of August, 2002 and the date
    of publication of this Scheme, shall not b~ eligible for the
    arrears on account of revision under this. Scheme:

     Provided further that the employees, who had sought
     special voluntary Retirement under:                           F

     (a) The General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary
     Retirement Scheme, 2004 (S.O.B.(E) dated the 1st
     January, 2004), in the case of company; or
                                                                   G
     (b) The General Insurance Corporation of India Employees'
   · Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (S.O. 454 (E)
     dated the 1st April, 2004) in the case of Corporation.

     And have been relieved thereunder prior to the date of this
                                                                   H
    620        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         notification shall not be eligible for any benefit arising from
          this Scheme other than that provided for by sub-paragraph
          2 of paragraph 5 of the General Insurance Employees'
          Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, or, the
          General Insurance Corporation of India Employees'
B         Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, as the case
          may be.

          (4) Nothing contained in this Scheme shall entitle an
          employee to claim overtime allowance higher than what he
          had been entitled to prior to the publication of this Scheme."
c
       18. In the light of the aforestated Scheme and the
  Notification, we have to consider whether the employees who
  had opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme are entitled
  to get the benefit of additional pension on the basis of revised
D salary in pursuance of the Notification.

       19. The learned counsel appearing for the employees, who
  had retired under the Scheme, had vehemently submitted that
  pension is 'a right of an employee for the services rendered in
  the past and as the pension depends upon the last salary paid
E or payable to the employee, the employee, who had opted for
  the Scheme and retired, must be given benefit of the revised
  pay and his pension must also be enhanced accordingly.

        20. It had been further submitted by the learned c.ounsel
F that upon retirement, though the relationship between the
  employees and the Employers had come to an end, the
  employees were entitled to the amount of pension payable to
  them as per the Scheme and also as per the General Insurance
  (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995. Simply because an
G employee retires and the relationship of an employee and
  empl9yer comes to an end would not mean that such a retired
  eroployee would not get a particular benefit from the employer
  if such a benefit is given to other employees. It had been further
  submitted that in the instant case even though the employees
H had opted for retirement under the Scheme, they are entitled
       MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                    621
               [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
to pension, especially when there is a provision for payment of       A
pension in the Scheme. In the circumstances, there cannot be
any dispute with regard to the fact that the employees are entitled
to pension on.. the basis of revised pay.

      21. It had been further submitted by the learned counsel        8
appearing for the employees that the employees had accepted
retirement under the Scheme as there was a specific provision
in Clause 5(2) of the Scheme that in case any wage revision is
effected from a date prior to the date of Notification of the said
Scheme in the Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for        C
the purpose of payment of ex gratia would be allowed.

     22. It had been, therefore, submitted that the wage revision
had taken place in pursuance of the Notification dated 21st
December, 2005, and as the pay revision was made with
retrospective effect from 1st August, 2002 and that the               D
employees were very much in service on 1st August, 2002, they
were entitled to the benefit of revision of the pay scales under
Notification dated 21st December, 2005.

     23. It had been further submitted that the pension is            E
determined on the basis of the salary last drawn and if the salary
is revised, the pension should also be revised accordingly.
According to the learned counsel, as there was an upward
revision of the salary with effect from 1st August, 2002,
determination of the amount of pension of the employees who           F
took benefit of the Scheme, should also be re-determined on
the basis of the revised pay.

     24. So as to substantiate the submissions made
hereinabove, the learned counsel had relied upon the judgment
delivered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kirpal G
Singh [2014 (1) SCALE 320] which lays down the law to the
effect that even if an employee has retired, he is entitled to the
benefit of subsequent upward pay revision and if a retired
employee is not given the benefit, the action of the employer
                                                                   H
    622      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

         25. It had also been submitted that by not revising pay of
    the retired employees, the Employers had also violated the
    principle of equal pay for equal work because the retired
    employees had also done same type of work in the past which
8
    was done by the employees who had not retired.

        26. In support of all the abovestated submissions, several
    judgments were cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
    employees who had retired under the Scheme.
c
          27. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
    the Employers had submitted that the purpose behind
    enactment of the Scheme was to see that the financial burden
    of the Employers is reduced in future by making one-time ex
0   gratia payment. It had been submitted that the employees had
    accepted the offer given by the Employers with regard to their
    retirement as a special case under the scheme and as a result
    of retirement under the Scheme, the employees were
    substantially benefitted because they were given ex gratia
E   payment to which they were otherwise not entitled to and they
    were also given additional amount of pension because a
    notional period of five years had been added to the number of
    years served by them.

         28. In other words, if an employee had rendered service
F   for 13 years, for the purpose of determination of his pension, it
    would be treated as if he had worked for 18 years and in that
    event, pension payable to the concerned employee would be
    much higher because an employee getting pension upon
    completion of 13 years' service and upon completion of 18
G   years' service cannot be the same. It is an admitted fact that
    upon addition of five more years of service, an employee would ·
    get sizeable more amount of pension.

        29. It had been thereafter submitted that upon entire
H   payment made by the Employers to the employees who had
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                  623
              [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, the               A
relationship of the employer and the employee had come to an
end and therefore also the employees were not entitled to any
additional amount of pension.

      30. It had also been submitted by the learned counsel
                                                                   B
appearing for the Employers that the employees, who retired
under the Scheme, very well knew that they were to get some
additional benefits under the Scheme and their relationship with
the Employers had come to an end upon their acceptance of
retirement under the Scheme. The benefit which had been given      C
by the Employers under the Notification dated 21st December,
2005 was only to the employees who were in service at the
relevant time and had continued in service or the employees
who had retired in normal course on or after 1st August, 2002.

    31. Those who had retired under the Scheme had been            D
given additional benefits and as their relationship with the
Employers had come to an end, there was no question of
making payment of additional pension to them.

     32. It had been further submitted that no discriminatory
                                                                   E
treatment was given to the employees who had retired under
the Scheme as they belonged to a separate class and there
was no violation of principle of equal pay for equal work.

     33. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon going
through the judgments rendered by different High Courts and        F
the relevant provisions pertaining to the Scheme and the
Notification dated 21st December, 2005, we are of the view
that the employees who had taken benefit under the Scheme
and had already retired would not be entitled to additional
pension due to retrospective increase in pay in pursuance of       G
Notification dated 21st December, 2005.

     34. There is no doubt that the Scheme had been framed
by the Employers to see that their expenditure in long term is
decreased by making one-time payment of additional amount
                                                                   H
    624      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A to the employees opting for retirement under the Scheme.
  Strength of the staff was going to be reduced subs~ntially du~.
  to voluntary retirement of several employees and the reduction
  in the staff was to result in reduction in the burden of salary and
  establishment expenditure. With the aforestated intention, which
B had been clearly revealed in the Scheme, the Employers had
  floated the Scheme and several employees of the Employers
  had taken due advantage of the Scheme by opting under the
  Scheme and by taking not only ex gratia payment of salary but
  also additional pension, which they would not have received
c otherwise. It is not in dispute that the employees opting for
  retirement under the Scheme were to get benefit of additional
  five years of service while calculating the pension. As stated
  hereinabove, the said benefit was substantial and the said
  benefit along with benefit of ex gratia payment, tempted number
  of employees who opted under the Scheme and retired happily
0
  after getting all retiral benefits.

       35. Normally, retrospective rise in salary is given to those
  who are in service at the relevant time or who had retired in
  normal circumstances. The employees who had opted under
E the Scheme had not retired as per the normal conditions of
  service but had retired under the Scheme upon taking some
  special additional benefits.

        36. It is also pertinent to consider clause 5(2) of the
F Scheme, which has been reproduced hereinabove. According
  to the said clause, ex gratia amount was to be paid to the
  concerned employees on the date of his/her being relieved and
  it was clarified that in case of wage revision effected from a
  date prior to the date on which the said Scheme had been
G notified in the Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the
  purpose of payment of ex gratia would be allowed. Meaning
  thereby, the employees who had opted under the Scheme and
  retired from service were entitled only to revision of ex gratia
  amount upon retrospective increase in the salary. Intention of
  the Employers is clearly revealed from clause 5(2) of the
H
      MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA                      625
              [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
Scheme. The intention was to give benefit only in relation to ex A
gratia amount and not in relation to the pension. Had the
intention been to give benefit of additional pension also, the
said fact would have been incorporated in the aforesaid clause.
In normal circumstances when an employee retires from service,
his relationship with the employer comes to an end. It is also a B
well settled legal position that after retirement, normally no
disciplinary action can be initiated against the concerned
employee. Similarly, the retired employee would not have any
right of redetermination of his pension but only in cases where
salary is revised with retrospective effect, the retired employee c
gets the benefit of additional pension and that too in certain
cases.

     37. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the employees
had already opted under the Scheme -under a specially made
Scheme, which was framed only with an intention to reduce              D
future expenditure of the Employers. If all these benefits are
given to the persons who had already ~pted under the Scheme
and had retired, the real purpose with which the Scheme had
been framed would be frustrated.
                                                                       E
     38. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf
of the employees that action of the Employers in not giving pay
rise to the employees in pursuance of the Notification is
discriminatory in nature. The employees who retired under the
Scheme form a separate class of employees who were given F
many benefits, which are not given to employees retiring in
normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no stretch
of imagination it can be said that all those who retired under
the Scheme and those who retired in normal course, are
similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no violation of G
Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the instant case.

    39. Similarly, there is no violation of the principle of equal
pay for equal work. True, that those who retired under the
Scheme did the same work which was being dbne by those
who retired in normal course, but one cannot forget the fact that      H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.

A   those who retired under the Scheme got substantially higher
    retirement benefits. In the circumstances, we do not accept the
    said submission also.

          40. Some submissions were made by the learned counsel
    for the employees regarding power of the Employers in relation
8
    to issuance of the Notification dated 21st December, 2005. We
    are of the view that an Employer can fix salary for its employees
    and we do not agree with the submission that the Notification
    was not issued properly or legally.

C        41. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the
    employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme
    would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of pay
    effected under the Notification dated 21st December, 2005.

D        42. All judgments directing the Employers to make
    additional payment of pension to the employees retiring under
    the Scheme are set aside and, accordingly, all the transferred
    cases are finally disposed of and Special Leave Petition (C)
    No.10903 of 2011 is dismissed.

E   Devika Gujral                    Transfer Cases & S.L.P disposed of.