JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---The five writ petitioners were the employees of the Bombay Port Trust working on Class III post. All of them retired on different dates between 1st January 1979 and 31st March 1979. The dispute in this petition relates to the entitlement of their pensionary benefits. 2. When the petitioners joined service they were admitted to Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. They continued to be governed by the said scheme till 1979. On 8th May 1979, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay by Resolution No. 137 of 1979 adopted the liberalised provisions of pension of the Third Pay Commission for various categories of employees including Class III and Class IV employees. It was made applicable to Class III and Class IV employees if they opted for pension and agreed to be governed by the definition of pay as applicable to the Central Government employees. The option was given to those employees who were in service on 31-12-1978. The petitioners who retired between the period from 1-1-1979 to 31-3-1979 opted to come under the Pension Scheme with the Port Trust definition of pay, as it was found more beneficial to them. Soon thereafter, on 25-5-1979 the Government of India introduced a liberalised scheme of pension. This scheme was sought to be made applicable only to those Government servants who were in service on 31-3-1979 and retired from service on or after that date. The petitioners did not fall in the category of persons who were sought to be governed by this scheme. The cut off date given in this was, however, challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its well known decision in the case of (D.S. Nakra)1, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 130 held the classification to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It extended the benefit of the said scheme to all employees irrespective of the date of retirement. 3. After the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioners approached the Port Trust of Bombay to allow them also to have the benefit of the Liberalised Scheme of 1979. There was no dispute that they too after the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakra's case were governed by the said Scheme. There was, however, one hurdle against them and that was that they had given an option prior to the coming into force of the new Scheme of 1979. There was no dispute that they too after the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakra's case were governed by the said Scheme. There was, however, one hurdle against them and that was that they had given an option prior to the coming into force of the new Scheme of 1979. The scheme became applicable to them as a result of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. They wanted that their option should either be ignored or they should be allowed to revise the option in view of the subsequent developments. The Port Trust found merit in their contention. It was inclined to give the benefit of liberalised pension scheme also to Class III and Class IV employees who retired on 31-12-1978 and who had opted for the Port Trust pension of pay, as that would be more beneficial. According to it the only remedy for that purpose was to give them a fresh option to choose between the Port Trust definition of pay and the Central Government definition of pay for pension. Accordingly, the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust, by his letter dated 20th July 1985, wrote to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport asking for orders as to whether such a fresh option can be given and whether their pension and D.C.R.G. should be recalculated on the basis of the Central Government's definition of pay giving the benefit of the liberalised pension formula. In the said letter it was also pointed out that as only a few such employees had chosen to be governed by the Government definition of 'pay' and in all the cases the revised pension with effect from 1-4-1979 (including periodical relief) would be more beneficial to the petitioners it would be more convenient if the Government straightaway approved recalculation of their pension on the basis of the Government definition of 'pay' as this would obviate a lot of avoidable clerical work. The Department of Surface Transport, however, by its letter dated 16/18-2-1985 addressed to the Chairman of the Port Trust, Bombay expressed disagreement with the recommendation of the Port Trust. Hence the present petition. 4. There is no dispute in this case that the liberalised scheme of 1979 was introduced almost immediately after the option was sought for. The Department of Surface Transport, however, by its letter dated 16/18-2-1985 addressed to the Chairman of the Port Trust, Bombay expressed disagreement with the recommendation of the Port Trust. Hence the present petition. 4. There is no dispute in this case that the liberalised scheme of 1979 was introduced almost immediately after the option was sought for. The option was sought for on 8th May 1979 and the new scheme was announced on 25-5-1979. The new scheme was, however, not sought to be made available to all those persons who retired prior to 31-3-1979. As such, option or no option, those who retired prior to 31-3-1979 were denied the benefit of liberalised scheme of 1979 as per the provisions of the said scheme as contemplated by the Government. It was only after the Supreme Court's judgment in D.S. Nakra's case that the benefit became available. There is again no dispute that those B.P.T., employees who did not give this option would be eligible to get the benefit. Only those who had exercised their option were not eligible to the benefit. The question is should they be denied such benefit? 5. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that denying such a benefit to those who had exercised the option is unfair and unjust. The stand taken by learned Counsel for the Port Trust is that the Port Trust is agreeable to do what it had recommended to the Central Government but in view of the stand taken by the Central Government which is binding on it, it has no option. Learned Counsel for the Central Government submitted in support of the stand of the Central Government that those who had exercised their option once should not be allowed to have a rethinking later and they should accept whatever was in their lot once they opted for it. According to learned Counsel fixation of a date for implementation of the scheme per se does not violate Article 14. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also brought to my notice a circular whereby the scheme was further liberalised in the year 1990 with effect from 1-1-1986 and the benefit of this scheme was extended even to those who are being denied the benefit of 1979 scheme on the ground of their having submitted the option. There is no dispute about the factual position. There is no dispute about the factual position. Learned Counsel for the Central Government as also the Counsel for the Port Trust agree that the benefits under the scheme are available from 1-1-1986. So the controversy now remains only in relation to pensionary benefits upto the period 31-12-1985. I have carefully considered the controversy. The number of persons who retired during the period 31-12-1978 to 31st March 1979 is insignificant. Counsel for the Bombay Port Trust fairly submits that in any event it will not be more than 25 persons in Class III and Class IV categories. The applicability of the scheme to them otherwise is also not in dispute. The only hurdle is the option. The Port Trust itself felt that it is harsh to deny the benefit only on that ground and took a very rational and reasonable approach in the matter. It went to the extent of saying that it would be more convenient if the Government straightway approved recalculation of pension and gave the benefits to those whom it was due. The department of Surface Transport did not, however, accept this suggestion. The letter written by it to the Chairman of the Bombay Port Trust simply says "It is regretted that these could not be agreed to". Nothing can be discerned from these innocuous words. It does not say why it could not agree to the proposal of the Port Trust. In my opinion the approach of the Bombay Port Trust was correct and reasonable and in time with the observations of the Supreme Court in Nakra's case. 7. Learned Counsel for the Central Government referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (Action Commity South Eastern Railway Pension v. Union of India)2, 1991 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 544, (Krishna Kumar v. Union of India)3, (1990)4 S.C.C. 207 and (All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India)4, 1992(II) C.L.R. 89. I have carefully gone through these decisions. In my opinion, the ratio of these decisions has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the department of Surface Transport was not justified in refusing to agree to the suggestion of the Bombay Port Trust in the matter of giving effect to the liberalised pension scheme of 1979 to the petitioners. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the department of Surface Transport was not justified in refusing to agree to the suggestion of the Bombay Port Trust in the matter of giving effect to the liberalised pension scheme of 1979 to the petitioners. I, therefore, hold that the benefit of the said scheme should also be given to the petitioners as rightly suggested by the Bombay Port Trust because admittedly the 1979 scheme is beneficial to them. Accordingly, I directly respondent No. 2 to recompute the pensionary benefits of the petitioners for the relevant period in accordance with the 1979 scheme and given the benefit thereof to them within three months from today. 9. In the result, petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****