ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 3. Heard parties. 4. All these appeals can be disposed of by this common order. All the respondents in these appeals were working either in the Border Security Force and/or the Central Reserve Police Force. All of them, as per the Rules, retired at the age of 55 years. Pension was computed on the basis of Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "49. Amount of pension. - (1) In the case of a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed sixmonthly period of qualifying service. (2)(a) In the case of a government servant retiring in accordance with a the provisions of these Rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty - three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem; (b) in the case of a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of thirty - b three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than rupees three hundred and seventy - five per mensem; * * * The revised provisions as per these orders shall apply to government servants who retire on or after 1 - 1 - 1996." As none of the respondents had qualifying service of 33 years, they were paid proportionate pension. 5. All the respondents filed writ petitions in various High Courts relying upon a judgment of this Court in Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India 1 wherein the question was whether the pension of the petitioners (therein) was liable to be reduced by recovery of pension equivalent to d gratuity. It had also been claimed that the qualifying service should be 30 years instead of 33 years. This Court by a one - paragraph order held as follows: (SCC p. 407, para 3) "3. It had also been claimed that the qualifying service should be 30 years instead of 33 years. This Court by a one - paragraph order held as follows: (SCC p. 407, para 3) "3. In view of the decision of this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India2 the 15 - year period or the age of 70 years, as fixed therein, has to apply and learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute this e position. There can also be no dispute that pension equivalent of gratuity will be recoverable from 1 - 1 - 1986. The only other question which requires determination is whether the appropriate period of service should be 30 years or 33 years. At the relevant time when each of the petitioners superannuated, the retiring age was 55 years. We are of the view that the period of qualifying service as indicated therein should therefore be 30 years." 6. Various High Courts have since been blindly following this judgment as having laid down that in all cases where a person has retired on superannuation or retired at the age of 55 years, the qualifying service should be 30 years. 7. In the beginning the appellants did not challenge these judgments. But when it was noticed that almost everybody was now filing petitions, merely on the basis of this judgment, these appeals were filed. 8. When these appeals3 reached hearing before this Court on 30 - 8 - 2005, a two - Judge Bench of this Court feeling constrained by the abovementioned jhdgment in Raghu Nandan easel referred all these cases to a larger Bench. That is how these matters are before us. 9. In all these petitions it is an admitted position that Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules would apply. The respondents only claim, in their writ petitions, was that this Court had held in Raghu Nandan easel and various High Courts judgments that the qualifying service should be 30 years, they were thus also entitled to the benefit. It is admitted before us that, in not a single writ petition, is there any .averment that Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not apply to that particular case. In none of the cases is there any challenge to the vires of the Rules and/or any challenge taken on the ground that the Rule is discriminatory. 10. In none of the cases is there any challenge to the vires of the Rules and/or any challenge taken on the ground that the Rule is discriminatory. 10. All the High Courts have passed the impugned judgments only on the basis of the observations made by this Court in Raghu Nandan easel. 11. We are unable to agree that Raghu Nandan easel decides any proposition of law. There is no reasoning in that case. There is no reference to any rule or to any other provision which would govern payment of pension. Thus the observations in Raghu Nandan easel must be confined to that case only. They cannot be used to give benefit to all and sundry. 12. So long as it is an admitted position that Rule 49 governs, payment of pension in all these cases, could only be as per the Rules. When there is no challenge to the Rule and there is no ground of discrimination taken in any of the petitions the Rule cannot be bypassed. 13. In our view, therefore all the judgments of the High Courts are unsustainable and are hereby set aside. We note that Mr Sharan has stated that the appellants will not recover pension paid in pursuance of the High Courts judgments. We also so direct. We also clarify that we have not considered the vires of Rule 49 and/or the question of discrimination as they had not been raised in any of the matters before us. 14. Accordingly, the appeals will stand allowed and all the petitions will stand dismissed.