JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Twenty-three Petitioners who have retired from service have jointly filed this Writ Petition inter alia praying for issuance of direction to the opposite parties not to deprive them of pensionary benefits under the OSEB Pension Scheme and to modify the Corrigendum issued by the OSEB on 18-5-2005, vide Annexure-2. 2. According to the Petitioners they were initially appointed under the- Orissa State- Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the OSEB' ) and thereafter were transferred to different organisations. After successful service, on attaining the age of superannuation they retired. They have averred that the Board of Directors of OSEB in its 90th Meeting Considering representation of some non-pensionary employees resolved to extend pensionary benefits to the persons who retired from service by 22nd December, 2004 under the Pension Scheme, but while issuing the Corrigendum dated 18th May, 2005 the words: Any such non-pensionary employee' who has retired by 22-12-2004 or thereafter up to 2005 and willing to exercise option to, come over to the OSEB Pension Scheme Regulations "were inserted in place of "any such non-pensionary employee who has retired by 22-12-2004 and willing to exercise option to come over to the GRIDCO Pension Scheme/Regulations. The Petitioners have averred that the word "thereafter" having been deleted by way of Corrigendum, they have been deprived of any pension. 3. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in SBI v. L.Kannaiah and Ors. 2003 (II) LLJ 230; Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that deprivation of pension to employees served for more than twenty-four years would be a travesty of justice on the ground that they were not employees of OSEB though they were initially engaged by OSEB. Learned Counsel further submitted that classification of employees who once upon a time had been engaged in OSEB and depriving them of pension, greatly prejudices their right and as such is illegal. 4. After receiving notice, a return has been filed by the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation (for short 'OPTC') taking the stand that the employees of the erstwhile OSEB used to get provident fund under the Employees.' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions. Act, 1952 (for short 'EPF & MP Act'). There was No. Pension Scheme and for the first time OSEB introduced such a Scheme for its employees with effect from 1-4-1990 by Resolution dated 19-3-1991. Act, 1952 (for short 'EPF & MP Act'). There was No. Pension Scheme and for the first time OSEB introduced such a Scheme for its employees with effect from 1-4-1990 by Resolution dated 19-3-1991. The said Resolution clearly specified that only the existing employees who were already enjoying the benefits under the EPF Scheme could opt for Pension Scheme. The said resolution also stipulated that such employees who were not interested to come over to the new Pension Scheme might submit their unwillingness so as to reach the appointing authority latest by 30.9.1991 failing which it was to be construed that they were not willing to come over the Pension Scheme. In the counter-affidavit it has been specifically stated that a number of employees including the Petitioners submitted their written unwillingness to switch over to the Pension Scheme and preferred to continue under the EPF Scheme. Accordingly the Petitioners after their retirement received all the benefits flowing out of EPF Scheme. The further averment of the opposite parties is that except Petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 all other Petitioners were engaged in Talcher Thermal Power Station. By virtue of the Talcher Thermal Power Station (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1994, the Talcher Thermal Power Station was transferred and vested in the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited ( for short NTPC ) with effect From 3-5- 1995. Consequent upon such transfer, all the employees including the Petitioners except the aforesaid four Petitioners were permanently absorbed in NTPC. After their service in NTPC they retired and received all the retirement benefits from NTPC. Thus they have No. right to claim any retirement benefit from OSEB or its successor GRIDCompany So far as Petitioner Nos. 7, 8 and 15 were concerned, it is stated, they retired and received their dues under the EPF & MP Act and gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. During their service period they intimated in writing to the management that they were unwilling to switch over to the Pension Scheme and, as such, they have No. locus standi to challenge the Resolution. So far as Petitioner No. 9 A.V. Samana was concerned he had individually filed OJC No. 17450 of 1998 before this Court claiming pensionary benefits. After examining the pros and cons, this Court by judgment dated 2-9-2005 came to the conclusion that the claim of the said Petitioner was neither legal nor justified. 5. So far as Petitioner No. 9 A.V. Samana was concerned he had individually filed OJC No. 17450 of 1998 before this Court claiming pensionary benefits. After examining the pros and cons, this Court by judgment dated 2-9-2005 came to the conclusion that the claim of the said Petitioner was neither legal nor justified. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. Fact remains, the services of all the Petitioners except Petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 were taken over by the NTPC by virtue of the Act. After serving the NTPC they retired and received all their retirement benefits. Even otherwise they had intimated the authorities that they were not willing to switch over to Pension Scheme. It further appears that after introduction of Pension Scheme with effect from 1-4-1990 the cut-off date for exercising option to switch over to the Pension Scheme was specified to be 30-9-1991. The Petitioners have admitted in their rejoinder affidavit that out of twenty-three Petitioners twenty-two were subscribers for EPF Scheme. Therefore their belated claim at this stage cannot be entertained. The Office Order dated 15-4-2005 dealt with representation of non-pensionary employees to come over to GRIDCO Pension Scheme. The said benefit was extended only to employees of GRIDCO and not to others. Thus the Petitioners having ceased to be employees of GRIDCO have No. locus standi to assail the said Office Order. 6. For the aforesaid discussion, finding No. merit in the contention of the Petitioner this Court dismisses the Writ Petition. Final Result : Dismissed