JUDGMENT : A.A. Desai, J. 1. The petitioners who are the dependents of the former employees of the respondent-Nagpur Municipal Corporation by the instant petitions have claimed a relief of a family pension. 2. According to them, the Government vide Resolution dated 11.2.1966 approved the Bye-laws laying down the Rules, regarding the payment of pension to the dependents of the deceased employees of the Corporation. As per Clause (2) of the Bye-laws, the amendment made from time to time in the Pension Rules as contained in Bombay Civil Services Rules would be adopted as far as possible. The petitioners, therefore, contended that as per the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984, the Government by amending the Pension Rules extended the benefit of the family pension to the employees retired or died prior to 1.1.1964. These pension rules were further amended by subsequent Government Resolution of 20-6-1986. According to the petitioners, the employees of the corporation died, before framing of the bye-laws i.e., 11.2.1966 and some of them even before the appointed day i.e. 14.12.1957 as laid down in the Bye-laws, However, in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 which has extended the benefit for those who died prior to 1.1.1964, the petitioners have a right to claim a family pension. 3. Mr. Dhabe, the learned counsel-appearing for the respondent-Corporation, has initially opposed the claim and submission. According to him, the amendments as issued from time to time to the Pension Rules have not been adopted by the Corporation and as such the petitioners cannot avail the benefit as flown from the Resolution dated 16.4.1984 and 20.6.1986. He submitted that the petitioners who have retired or died subsequent to 14.12.1957 i.e., the appointed day who were entitled to the Provident Fund benefits are required to exercise their option for availing the benefits of the Family Pension Scheme as provided under the Bye-laws. He further submitted that as per Clause (7) those Corporation employees died subsequent to 14.12.1957 but before 11.2.1966 when the Bye-laws came to be framed and could not exercise their option, as per Clause (7) would be automatically treated of having exercised the option in favour of the family pension. In view of these provisions of the Bye-laws, Mr. He further submitted that as per Clause (7) those Corporation employees died subsequent to 14.12.1957 but before 11.2.1966 when the Bye-laws came to be framed and could not exercise their option, as per Clause (7) would be automatically treated of having exercised the option in favour of the family pension. In view of these provisions of the Bye-laws, Mr. Dhabe made a submission that except the petitioner Smt. Vatsalabai Lakhe in Writ Petition No. 2621 of 1987 and Smt. Geetabai Dhable petitioner in Writ Petition No. 132/1988, other petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the family pension. Mr. Dhabe, however, very fairly conceded that Smt. Vatsalabai and Geetabai Dhable are entitled to a benefit of family pension since their husband respectively died on 10.9.1963 and on 25.1.1959 i.e., subsequent to the date appointed under the Bye-laws, namely 14.12.1957. 4. Mr. Dhabe, however, submitted that the employees in other petition died earlier to 14.12.1957 when the family pension scheme came into operation as per the provisions of the Bye-laws. In the submission of Mr. Dhabe when these employees were in the employment the family pension was not in vogue. He further submitted that the Bye-laws have statutorily laid down a dead line i.e., 14.12.1957, for the grant of pensionary benefit and the same cannot be pushed back so as to extend the benefits to the dependent of the employees who died earlier to that date. Mr. Dhabe reiterated before us the settled proposition that the legislation cannot be held to be retroactive in operation unless specifically expressed by legislative intention or it is necessary by legal implication. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision reported in a case of Arjan Singh and Another Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, and S.S. Gadgil, Income Tax Officer, Bombay Vs. Lal and Company,. However, there is no dispute to this proposition. The aspect before us is slightly different. It is reported before us that prior to 1966, the Provident Fund Scheme was applicable to the employees of the Corporation. The Family Pension Scheme for the first time was introduced by Government Resolution dated 11.2.1966 by approving the Bye-laws. The Bye-laws have provided that those who were admitted to the benefits of Provident Fund Scheme were called upon to exercise the option. The Family Pension Scheme for the first time was introduced by Government Resolution dated 11.2.1966 by approving the Bye-laws. The Bye-laws have provided that those who were admitted to the benefits of Provident Fund Scheme were called upon to exercise the option. It is also submitted that only those employees who were availing the benefit of the Provident Fund Scheme are entitled to the benefits under the Family Pension Scheme. It is also not disputed before us that the employees in question were eligible to the Provident Fund Scheme and they were further eligible to exercise the option provided they would have continued in the employment subsequent to 14.12.1957, but for their death. Mr. Dhabe, therefore, made a submission that the benefit of the Scheme cannot be pushed back earlier to 14.12.1957 and as per Clause (2) of the Bye-laws, the Government Resolution amending the Pension Scheme under the Bombay Civil Services Rules can be adopted as far as possible. Mr. Dhabe, therefore, submitted that the employees who died prior to 14.12.1957 their dependents-petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefit of the Family Pension. Mr. Dhabe, however, ultimately conceded by making statement that these resolutions are applicable to the employees of the Corporation. However, the ultimate relief of grant of pension is subject to the provisions laid down under the Bye-laws. 5. Mr. Dhabe has invited our attention to a decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1985 dated 11.4.1985 where the widow of the deceased employee who died on 20.3.1963 claimed a pensionary benefit. The reliance was also placed on the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984. The Learned Counsel then appearing for the Corporation has also fairly conceded that the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984 were also extended to the employees of the Corporation. In view of this position, we propose to examine the substance of Government Resolution dated 16.4.1984. As per the Pension Rules under the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, the benefits were not admissible to the widows of the employees who died or retired prior to 1.1.1964. The Government by amending the Pension Rules has extended the benefits to such widows of the employees who died earlier to 1.1.1964 or retired before that date. The Government Resolution has granted a family pension of Rs. 60/- with admissible relief with effect from 1.1.1984. The Government by amending the Pension Rules has extended the benefits to such widows of the employees who died earlier to 1.1.1964 or retired before that date. The Government Resolution has granted a family pension of Rs. 60/- with admissible relief with effect from 1.1.1984. Admittedly, the employees of the Corporation in question have died earlier to 1.1.1964. By subsequent Government Resolution dated 20.6.1986, the Government has fixed the date as from 1.10.1977. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2622/87. 2201/87, 644/88, 132/88, 133/88, 134/88 and 135/88 are, therefore, entitled to the pension as per the Rules amended from time to time from 1.10.1977. 6. The petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. We direct the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, to calculate the pensionary benefit before 30.4.1990 and make the requisite payment to the petitioners.