TAPEN SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12. 10. 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CR No. 7993 (W) of 1993 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the respondents/ petitioners (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the respondents)to apply and extend the benefits given to the retired Teachers of Government colleges was allowed in the following terms: "in these circumstances respondents are directed to restore parity of pensionary benefits between the petitioners and retired teachers of government Colleges as contemplated under the aforesaid three notifications/government orders dated 7. 4. 1975, 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978. The petitioners shall be entitled to benefits of revision of pensionary benefits given to the retired teachers of Government Colleges from time to time by virtue of various Government orders annexed to the petition as Annexure 'd' to 'g'. They shall also be entitled to all arrears of pension calculated on the basis of Annexurcs 'd' to 'g' the parity as regards pensionary benefits between the two classes of teachers must be restored by paying the petitioners whatever arrear they may be entitled to in accordance with the aforesaid three notifications. I further directed the respondents to clear the arrears of pension within one year either by one time payment on in two equal instalments, from today arising out of revision of pensionary benefits that were given to retired teachers of government Colleges but denied to the petitioners so long. All such arrears may be paid in two equal instalments in the discretion of the government but all such payments of arrears must be completed within a period of 1 year from today. I further direct that all revisions of pensionary benefits that may be given to retired teachers of Government colleges of West Bengal from time to tune in future or that might have already been given to them since issuance of the said three notifications dated 7. 4. 1975, 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978 must apply equally to petitioners and similarly situated others covered by the said three notifications and they shall be entitled to the same. In case any of the petitioners or similarly situated others expired before delivery of this judgment, their legal heirs shall be entitled to the same in accordance with law dealing with the subject. Petition is, therefore, allowed. In case any of the petitioners or similarly situated others expired before delivery of this judgment, their legal heirs shall be entitled to the same in accordance with law dealing with the subject. Petition is, therefore, allowed. No order as to costs. " ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the respondents stated that by a Notification dated 7. 4. 1975 the Teachers of Non-Government Colleges were given the option of revised UGC pay scale and subsequently vide a Notification dated 11. 5. 1976 those Teachers including the respondents herein became entitled to receive retirement benefits as admissible to State Government employees of corresponding pay and rank. They also stated that pursuant to the commitment made by the aforementioned Notifications, the Government of West Bengal issued a 3rd Notification dated 31. 5. 1978 introducing a Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Scheme for the superannuated non-Government college Teachers with retrospective effect from 1. 4. 1974. According to the respondents herein, on the issuance of the aforesaid 3rd Notification dated 31. 5. 1978, the commitment and/or promise made by the State Government to extend corresponding and equal retirement benefits as notified earlier by notification dated 11. 5. 1976 stood fulfilled. According to the respondents, the Government, after having conferred retirement benefits to non-Government College Teachers at par with the corresponding State government College Teachers by Notification dated 31. 5. 1978, issued a series of other Notifications upwardly revising the retirement benefits of State government College Teachers/pensioners but the benefit of such upward revisions were not extended to these respondents who were non-Government college Teachers. ( 3 ) IN the background of the aforementioned grievances, the respondents filed the aforementioned writ petition bearing CR No. 7993 (W) of 1993 wherein they prayed inter alia, for the issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the authorities of the Government to show cause as to why the Notifications revising the retirement benefits of State Government employees be not made applicable to non-Government College Teachers of similar rank and pay. They also prayed for an order commanding upon the authorities to take steps for revising the pension of the respondents in accordance with the Notification dated 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978 including steps for sanctioning their retirement benefits at par with State Government employees/pensioners. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge held in favour of the respondents in the manner referred to in para-1 above. Mr. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978 including steps for sanctioning their retirement benefits at par with State Government employees/pensioners. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge held in favour of the respondents in the manner referred to in para-1 above. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (which was the respondent No. 4 before the Writ Court), submitted at the outset, that the points that were raised and/or submitted before the learned Single Judge have not been dealt with in their proper perspective and, as a result thereof, the impugned judgment has been delivered. ( 5 ) LET it be recorded at the very outset that there were four respondents before the Writ Court, out of which, it is only the respondent No. 4 which has preferred this appeal. It is further evident from the records of this case that the remaining respondents have been arrayed as proforma respondent nos. 40, 41 and 42 in this memo of appeal and it is further evident that on 14. 7. 2003, a Division Bench ordered the dispensation of service upon them. ( 6 ) IN that background, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya proceeded to argue the case entirely on behalf of the 4th respondent before the Writ Court namely the Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal. It is further evident from the paper books submitted that even before the Writ court, the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4, was actually sworn by one Dr. Pijush Kanti Ganguly, Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal. He had stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that he had been duly authorised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to affirm the affidavit on their behalf also. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to learned Counsel, the Teachers of the Non-Government college are totally separate and form a separate class by themselves and they can neither be equated nor brought at par with the corresponding state Government College Teachers. He submitted that the learned Single judge, did not properly appreciate this distinction and also misdirected himself by not appreciating that the Teachers of Government Colleges are recruited by the State Government on the recommendations of the Public service Commission whereas the Teachers of Non-Government Colleges are appointed by the Governing body on the recommendation of the College service Commission, West Bengal. He further submits that the Teachers of government Colleges are construed to be employees of the Government of west Bengal having a distinct Code of Conduct and are guided by the West bengal Service Rules whereas there is no such Code of Conduct of the teachers of Non-Government Colleges. He submits that the Teachers of government Colleges are liable to be transferred from one Government college to another Government College, whereas the Teachers of Non-Government Colleges continue to remain in the same College from the time of their appointment. He also submits that the retirement age of the teachers of Government Colleges is 58 years, whereas the retirement age of the Teachers of Non-Government Colleges is 60 years. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge did not consider that the retired Teachers of Non-Government Colleges in the State of West bengal formed a Distinct Class and therefore had no business to claim parity in pension and pensionary benefits that are applicable to the retired Teachers of Government Colleges in the State of West Bengal. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel submits that the impugned judgment is erroneous because it does not consider the true effect, interpretation and tenor of (a)Circular Nos. 372-Edn (CS)/sp-9/74 dated 7th April, 1975; (b) circular No. 817-Edn (CS)/cs. ip-21/75 pt. dated 11th May, 1976 and; (c) Circular no. 1097- Edn (CS)/cs-IP-2/75 pt. dated 31st May, 1978 because in all these circulars, there is a reference to the "introduction" of a scheme for payment of pension to the Non-Government College Teachers thereby clearly signifying that they were a distinct and different class as compared to a Government College employee. He also submits that at the time of introduction of the Scheme, there was no commitment on the part of the Government that Non-Government College teachers would be treated at par with the State government employees in the matter of extending the benefit of Death-cum-Retirement Rules. He also submits that at the time of introduction of the Scheme, there was no commitment on the part of the Government that Non-Government College teachers would be treated at par with the State government employees in the matter of extending the benefit of Death-cum-Retirement Rules. ( 10 ) HE also submitted that in fact, the pensionary benefits of Non-Government College Teachers have been subjected to upward revision from time to time and the intention of the Government had also been to do justice but that does not mean that they can be brought at par with the Government college Teachers who are governed under the West Bengal Service Rules which is distinct and different from Non-Government College Teachers who are governed by their respective University Statute. ( 11 ) IN paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition it was stated that the teaching staff of Non-Government Colleges constituted a totally separate and distinct class which could not be equated with Teachers of Government colleges whose mode of recruitment, service conditions and extension of retirement benefits were separate. From the affidavit-in-opposition, it is further evident that the submission in relation to alleged commitments having been made by the State Government, were totally denied and disputed. ( 12 ) WE have no hesitation in holding that these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have not impressed us at all because what is crucial to this case are the interpretation of the 3 (three) circulars issued by the Government. This case has to be judged entirely on the basis of what the Government had intended while issuing these Circulars. Thus if it is found that the Government had intended, right from the beginning, to bring these two classes at par, then all these submissions relating to there being two classes etc. of the learned Counsel become meaningless. ( 13 ) THE learned Single Judge, after having considered the submissions and/or pleadings came to a conclusion which reads as follows: "even if we assume that there are some differences between two classes of retired Teachers, there is no justification for denying similarity of treatment with regard to pensionary benefits after the Government issued the aforesaid notifications dated 7. 4. 1975, 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978. These notifications/government orders are still in force. 4. 1975, 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978. These notifications/government orders are still in force. By virtue of these notifications the retired Teachers of non-Government Colleges who had opted for UGC pay scales and did not opt for Contributory Provident fund are as of right entitled to same treatment with regard to pensionary benefits including benefit arising out of revision of such benefits as are being given to superannuated Teachers of Government Colleges. This is effective from 1. 1. 1973. These retired Teachers from non-Government colleges during their service accepted the offer given by the Government sacrifice their service upto the age of 62 years and opted for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, a promise having been given under the said three Government orders/notifications that there will be a parity of pensionary benefits between two classes of teachers, there is absolutely no reason to deny the same to them. Whatever pensionary benefits including revision thereof from time to time that were given to superannuated Teachers of Government Colleges on the basis of last pay drawn should be also extended equally to the retired teachers of Non-Government Colleges like the petitioners provided they had opted for UGC. Scales acting upon the aforesaid three notifications. These notifications being still in force, there is absolutely no reason to deny the petitioners the revision of pensionary benefits given to retired teachers of Government Colleges from time to time. Even if we proceed on the assumption that some intelligible differentia exist between the two classes of Teachers, the respondents cannot deny the right that had accrued to the petitioners with regard to parity of pensionary benefits with the retired Teachers of Government Colleges in view of aforesaid three notifications which are still in force. " ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, during the course of arguments, opposed this appeal and submitted that while one the one hand the State Government introduced the new UGC pay scales at par in 1975 and 1976, it also brought the retirement benefits at par with the State government employees through the 1976 Notification read with the 1978 scheme. Therefore, the State Government never intended that such a benevolent measure should be static. ( 15 ) FROM a perusal of the Notification dated 11. 5. Therefore, the State Government never intended that such a benevolent measure should be static. ( 15 ) FROM a perusal of the Notification dated 11. 5. 1976, it is clear that the government had taken a decision that non-Government Teachers who opted for the new UGC scales as introduced by Notification dated 7. 4. 1975, should be given either retirement benefits such as General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity as applicable to the State Government employees of corresponding rank and pay. Thus the Government took a conscious decision that the non-Government employees would be treated at par with government employees as early as on 7. 4. 1975. ( 16 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in holding that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with inasmuch as we are of the view that by Notifications dated 7. 4. 1975, 11. 5. 1976 and 31. 5. 1978 the Government had clearly taken a conscious decision to bring about parity between these two groups of teachers, one being employed in non-Government Colleges and the other, in Government Colleges. It is also evident that at least on 11. 5. 1976 the government took a conscious decision of introducing and/or sanctioning pension and gratuity to Teachers of non-Government Colleges. The letter clearly indicates that after careful consideration, the Governor had decided that teachers who opted for the new UGC scales of pay would be given retirement benefits as applicable to the State Government employees. Clause (4) of the said letter dated 11. 5. 1976 indicated that detailed rules with regard to the retirement benefit scheme 'now approved' will be prescribed 'by the government separately. This clause (4) therefore, is a pointer to the fact that the retirement benefits scheme was then approved, i. e. , approved as on 11. 5. 1976. The separate rules which is referred to in clause (4) was ultimately brought in force by a Letter/notification dated 31. 5. 1978. In the said letter dated 31. 5. 1978, which was really in continuation of the earlier government letter dated 11. 5. 1976, it was indicated that the Governor had accorded his approval to the introduction of the West Bengal College Teachers (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme. In the said Scheme it was laid down that it will be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1. 4. 1974. 5. 1976, it was indicated that the Governor had accorded his approval to the introduction of the West Bengal College Teachers (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme. In the said Scheme it was laid down that it will be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1. 4. 1974. These two documents therefore clearly show that a set of rules were framed for the non-Government College Teachers making it effective from 1. 4. 1974. After the Government had taken such a conscious decision to bring them at par with State Government employees of corresponding rank and pay, they cannot be allowed to turn back and plead that these are two separate categories and/or that they are not entitled. The observations of the learned single Judge as quoted above, are therefore observations which have very correctly noticed that by virtue of these Notifications, the retired Teachers of non-Government Colleges who had opted for UGC pay scales and not for contributory Provident Fund, became entitled to pensionary benefits as given or applicable to State Government employees of corresponding rank and pay. It is nobody's case that these Notifications/government orders/ letters have been withdrawn till date. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants further stated that the effect of the letter dated 31. 5. 1978 came only on 26. 8. 1993 by reason of a letter of the said date and therefore, during all these years, the Scheme had been kept in abeyance. We do not accept such a contention because the letter dated 31. 5. 1978 nowhere stated that its effect was being kept in abeyance. On the contrary, when we look into the letter 26. 8. 1993 we find that it is a decision of the Governor to grant higher retirement benefits to non-Government College Teachers who were already entitled to the retirement benefits under the Scheme as issued under the letter dated 31. 5. 1978. It is true that the opening lines of this letter dated 26. 8. 1993 reads "whereas the teachers of Non-Government Colleges are now entitled to retirement benefits under the West Bengal Non-Government College Teachers (Death-cum-Retirement) Scheme as issued under the department No. 1097-EDN (CS) dated the 31st May, 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . It is true that the opening lines of this letter dated 26. 8. 1993 reads "whereas the teachers of Non-Government Colleges are now entitled to retirement benefits under the West Bengal Non-Government College Teachers (Death-cum-Retirement) Scheme as issued under the department No. 1097-EDN (CS) dated the 31st May, 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . ", but by using the word "now" in the aforementioned letter, it cannot be deemed that entitlement of the Non-Government College Teachers began only with effect from 26. 8. 1993 and not before that. On the contrary, the word "now" used in this letter is merely an expression indicating that by reason of the Scheme framed under the Departmental Memo dated 31. 5. 1978, the Teachers became entitled to the benefits under that Scheme. That Scheme made the benefits effective from 1. 4. 1974. Therefore, in the context of the Notification dated 31. 5. 1978 read with the Scheme, an interpretation that till 26. 8. 1993 the effect of the said Scheme was put on hold, would be, in the opinion of this Court, a monstrous and a totally unjustified interpretation. The mere usage of the word "now" in 1993 cannot change the texture and meaning of a Notification issued 15 (fifteen) years ago and that too, when the said earlier Notification dated 31. 5. 1978 and the Scheme published thereunder had NOWHERE indicated that it was being put on hold. ( 18 ) WE have therefore no hesitation in rejecting such a contention because the Scheme was issued under the letter dated 31. 5. 1978 and in that letter it was clearly mentioned that the Scheme was being made effective from 1. 4. 1974. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted to mean that it is in the year 1993 that the letter dated 31. 5. 1978 came to be given effect to. Mr. Bikash ranjan Bhattacharyya submitted that the non-Government Teachers are controlled by the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 which does not have any application upon Government Teachers Service conditions may be different but for purposes of pension, the Government, having once taken a conscious decision way back in the years 1975, 1976 and then in 1978 inducing a hope in the non-Government College Teachers, cannot suddenly turn around and make arguments depriving them of these benefits. For the foregoing reasons, stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.