JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents for not providing him pensionery benefits. The unfolded facts are that petitioner who was serving on the post of Upper Division Clerk in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya was retired on 31.1.1985. Petitioner on his retirement was benefited by the Scheme of Contributory Provident Fund (for short CPF) and accordingly the amount of CPF was paid to him. Later on, the Board of Management in its 140lh Meeting held on 3.12.1994 with the concurrence of State Government, issued a circular/order dated. 31.12.1994 cancelling the earlier arrangement in order to benefit the employees of the said University and in place of payment of CPF it was directed to benefit the employees by pensionery benefits. In pursuance to the order Annexure-R. 2 dated 31.12.1994, an order Annexure-P.2 dated 9.12.1997 was issued by the University directing that the employees shall be benefited by the pensionery benefit and the payment under the head of CPF was directed to be cancelled. Thereafter, vide Annexure-P-3 dated 22.1.1998 said University issued a letter to its all departments directing that the scheme of CPF is abolished and to make necessary entries in the service book of the employees concerned. It was further directed that the persons who have exercised options for CPF on their, absorption in the Vishwavidyalaya but their names do not find place in the list enclosed with the said letter, their names may be intimated. 2. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently submitted that if case of petitioner is tested on the touchstone of Annexure P. 2 and P. 3 it would be as clear like a noon day that the petitioner would be entitled for the pensionery benefit. Learned Counsel by inviting my attention to the list attached ito Annexure P. 3 dated 22.1.1998, has submitted that name of petitioner is on the top of the list and if that is the position, according to learned Counsel, petitioner is entitled for the pensionery bent fit, it is also put forth by him that the amount of CPF which was obtained by him at the time of retirement, was returned back to the University and thereafter again it was paid to him. It is also canvassed by him that the petitioner is ready to pay the interest on the said amount at the rate prevailing today. On this premised submission, it has been submitted by learned Counsel that this petition be allowed and petitioner may be benefited by the pensionery benefit. 3. Combating the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner, it is contended by Shri Dube, learned Counsel appearing for respondents that no argument is required as the University had already issued order/circular Annexure P. 3 dated 31.12.1994. The contention of learned Counsel is that said circular is having force of law since it has been issued on the basis of the meeting of Board of Management constituted under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). The recommendation of meeting of Board was approved by the State Government and this is reflected from Annexure R. 2 which was issued on 31.12.1994. The contention of learned Counsel for respondents is that if some administrative orders are issued de hors the statutory document having force of law (Annexure R. 2), those documents are having no sanctity in the eye of law. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1985 and after his retirement on 31.12.1994 said order Annexure R.2 was issued and, therefore, since the order cannot be made applicable retrospectively, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the pensionery benefits. 4. After having heard learned Counsel for parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. This fact is no more in dispute that petitioner was retired on 31.1.1985. The Scheme which was prevailing at that juncture was in regard to benefit retired employees by making payment under said CPF Scheme. If, later on by exercising statutory powers conferred to the Board under the provisions of Adhiniyam, some order is issued with the concurrence of the State Government and a decision is taken that the employees who shall be retired, will be benefited by pension in place of benefits conferred to them under the CPF Scheme, the view of this Court is that it is always prospective. It is cardinal principle of law that the law which is made applicable on the date of its enforcement, is always prospective in nature unless and until by express or by necessary implication it is given retrospective perusal of Annexure 2 dated 31.12.1994 it is gathereci that it was not made applicable retrospectively. On the contrary it appears to be prospective in nature. If, some administrative orders are issued de hors Statutory document like Annexure R.2, the view of this Court is that it would not confer any right in the petitioner. There is no force in the submission of Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for petitioner that on account of the own admission of respondents; petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension for the simple reason that there cannot be any estcppel against the statute. 6. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the petition. Same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. 7. If the amount of CPF was not returned back by the petitioner the respondents are hereby directed to pay back to the petitioner immediately on or before 31.8.2005; failing which it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum. C.C. today.