However, on review, at the instance of the appellants the learned single Judge who had decided the second writ petition came to the companyclusion that a scheme, which was never brought into force companyld number have been directed to be implemented and, therefore, directed the parties to obtain a review of the earlier order of 2 12 1991 in terms of the minutes which had been obtained from the Division Bench in the first writ petition.
The learned single Judge, therefore, in review in the second writ petition, by his order of 15 12 1995 modified his earlier order and directed that the respondent will be entitled to pensionary benefits as per the scheme as modified and finally approved by the Central Government by its order dated 18th of September, 1991.
The Division Bench thereupon by its order dated 9 11 1995 directed the learned single Judge hearing the review petition in the subsequent writ petition to decide this question.
In the affidavit in reply which was filed by the appellants in the writ petition it was pointed out that the draft scheme which was circulated on 29th of April, 1990 had undergone several modifications before finalisation and the scheme became final only after the approval of the Government on 18 9 1991.
Since the pensionary benefit granted to the respondent was in accordance with the scheme as finally approved and number as per the draft scheme the respondent filed a second writ petition which was granted.
Ultimately on 18 9 1991 the Central Government approved the scheme as ultimately modified.
The respondent, however, thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the said judgment and order in review dated 15 12 1995.
The scheme was submitted to the Government for approval on 14 6 1990.
The draft scheme was circulated under the title Self Contributory Post Retirement and Death in Service Benefit Scheme, 1990.
While the respondent was in service a draft superannuate benefit scheme for the employees of the appellants was approved by the Executive Committee with some modifications and subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities including Commissioner of Income tax on 29 4 1990.
Thereafter, on account of representations received from certain associations of employees the draft scheme underwent further modifications.
In the review application in the first writ petition, the Division Bench had expressly allowed the question of identity of the scheme to be implemented, to be decided by the learned Judge who was hearing the review application in the second writ petition.
The order, however referred to pension being granted to the respondent in terms of the scheme of 29 4 1990.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming benefit of the draft scheme as circulated on 29th of April, 1990.
Thereupon minutes of the order were drawn up and an order was passed on 2 12 1991 in terms of the minutes.
Thereafter, there was some further modifications to the scheme and the modified scheme was again submitted to the Government for approval on 15 11 1990.
The respondent by his letter of 15th of December, 1995 addressed to the appellants accepted the order of the single Judge in the said review application and requested the appellants to finalize his benefits accordingly, and after adjustment of amounts as mentioned in that letter.
He retired from service on 30 6 1991.
The Division Bench has allowed the appeal only on the basis that the learned Judge companyld number have reviewed his decision in the way he did.
The scheme so approved was the only scheme in operation.
There were several subsequent modifications to the draft scheme.
Special leave granted.
The respondent was a legal adviser with the appellant Corporation.
The appellants were agreeable to give to the respondent benefits under the scheme as approved by the Central Government.
