However, the appellant Board had number adopted the orders issued by the Government in G.O. No.
Let as number give facts in brief to appreciate the companymon issue raised in these cases, The appellant Board was brought into existence on 1.7.1957 in accordance with Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act .
The employees of the Electricity Department of the Govt.
After the formation of the appellant Board, separate proceedings were issued in all matters companynected with it by virtue of powers companyferred under Section 79 of the Act including pension regulations after taking into account the financial companymitment involved in adopting Government orders in the matter of terminal benefits as well as the service companyditions of the employ xs, It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.M.S. No.
1999 2 SCR 221 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted.
The retired employees respondents , aggrieved by the prospective introduction of the pension scheme from 1.7.1986, moved the High Court to quash that part of the Boards proceedings in BP MS FB No.
The retired employees respondents moved the Division Bench of the High Court.
It is also a fact that the appellant Board acted upon such representation and it had to companyply with certain formalities before introducing the pension scheme.
797 dated 30.6.1969 introduced pension scheme to its employees who were number governed earlier by such pension scheme.
After getting exemptions from the purview of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 from the Central Government, the appellant Board companyld introduce the pension scheme w.e.f.
of Tamil Nadu were transferred to the appellant Board oh and from 1.7.1957 and the erstwhile employees of the Government became the employees of he Board.
5 dated 26.6.1986 which fixed the date of the application of the proceedings on or after 1.7.1986.
It is number in dispute that the employees respondents , termed as workmen in Regular Work Charged Establishment, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on the date when they were transferred from Electricity Department of Tamil Nadu to the appellant Board.
It is also number in dispute that on their retirement prior to 1.7,1986 all the employees respondents , who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, had received all retiral benefits in full settlement.
1.7.1986.
The law on the companymon issue that arises for decision in thesecases is well settled and, therefore, we do riot propose to write a detailed judgment The companymon issue that arises in all these cases can be broadly stated as follows Whether the appellant Board has acted illegally or companytrary to law in introducing a pension scheme to the employees, who were hitherto number governed by such pension scheme, prospectively from 1.7.1986.
To put it differently, whether me employees respondents who were all retired before 1.786 after receiving all retiral benefits available to them as per the law existing on their dates of retirement, can companypel the appellant Board to extend the benefit of newly introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect.
797 dated 30.6,1969, It is a fact that the employees respondents were making representations to the appellant Board from time to time to extend the benefit of pension scheme to those who were hitherto governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
