Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 922 (KAR)

Kumbaiah v. State Of Karnataka

2012-11-08

B.V.NAGARATHNA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2012
Judgment NAGARATHNA, J: 1. These writ appeals are filed by pensioners who have retired from the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "KPTCL" for the sake of convenience), assailing the orders of the learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petitions. Initially, W.P.Nos.31281-31313/2009 were dismissed by order dated 23.11.1009. Following the said order, several other writ petitions have been dismissed by other learned Single Judges. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005 from KPTCL, which is a corporate body constituted for the transmission and distribution of power supply for certain parts of the State. 3. By tripartite agreements dated 31.07.1999 and 15.09.1999 between the Government of Karnataka, the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board and the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Union, it was agreed that the Government and KPTCL shall guarantee payment of pension including Dearness Allowance and other benefits that are in force pursuant to the Bilateral Settlement and terms and conditions prevailing as on the dates of Settlements, to the pensioners and family pensioners. As per the Bilateral Settlement dated 31.07.1999, employees of KPTCL were entitled to pension and pensionary benefits as applicable to employees of the Government of Karnataka. 4. According to the appellants, by a Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.09.2006, KPTCL revised the pay scales of employees who were in service as on 01.04.2003 by adding 10% of the pay to the existing basic pay. By an order dated 27.09.2006 at clause XVIII (b), it was made clear that the pensionary benefits would be regulated as prevailing in the State Government. In the meanwhile the Government of Karnataka had passed an order on 04.04.2006 wherein 10% interim relief was sanctioned to retired employees of the State Government. Similarly, KPTCL extended the said benefits to its employees as per its order dated 04.11.2006. 5. Thereafter, the 5th Pay Commission recommended revision of pay scales and consequently revision of pension and family pension of Government servants who died in service or retired prior to 01.07.2005. Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka issued an order dated 06.06.2007 revising the pension and family pension to the employees of the State Government. KPTCL also issued an order dated 31.08.2007, bifurcating the pensionary benefits in the following manner: i) Sanctioning 17.5% to the employees who had retired prior to 01.04.2003 by merging 71% Dearness Allowance (D.A.). Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka issued an order dated 06.06.2007 revising the pension and family pension to the employees of the State Government. KPTCL also issued an order dated 31.08.2007, bifurcating the pensionary benefits in the following manner: i) Sanctioning 17.5% to the employees who had retired prior to 01.04.2003 by merging 71% Dearness Allowance (D.A.). ii) Employees who retired after 01.04.2003 only 71% D.A. has been merged and 17.5% has not been added. 6. By order dated 25.04.2008, KPTCL accorded approval for the calculation of pension and family pension of those employees who retired after 01.04.2006. According to the appellants, the KPTCL has classified the pensioners into three categories in the following manner, which is discriminatory: (a) To employees who retired before 31.03.2003, the respondents have extended the Government Order and sanctioned 17.5% of Basic pension/family pension. (b) To employees who retired on or after 01.04.2003, the respondents have denied 17.5% of Basic pension/family pension in violation of the Agreement dated 27.09.2006. (c) To employees who retired after 01.07.2005, the respondents have extended 71% of Dearness Allowance. 7. Thereafter, by order dated 02.06.2008 KPTCL enhanced the escalation in the basic pay from 10% to 12% to the employees who were in service as on 01.04.2003. 8. Being aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to those employees who had retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.04.2005, they had made representations and not receiving any response to the same, filed writ petitions before this court. During the pendency of the writ petitions endorsements were issued to the appellants rejecting their claim which were assailed in subsequent writ petitions which have been dismissed. It is against the orders of dismissal that these appeals have been filed. 9. In the statement of objections filed by the KPTCL to the writ appeals as no notice was issued to them in the Writ Petitions initially dismissed, it has been admitted that pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th State Pay Commission being accepted by the Government of Karnataka by order dated 04.04.2006, interim relief was granted to the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006 at 10% of basic pension/family pension. It has also been admitted that as per the Memorandum Settlement dated 25.09.2006, effective from 01.04.2003, as per Clause 11-B, the pensionary benefits including family pension was to be payable and regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. It has also been admitted that as per the Memorandum Settlement dated 25.09.2006, effective from 01.04.2003, as per Clause 11-B, the pensionary benefits including family pension was to be payable and regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. That the State Government Order dated 06.06.2007 pursuant to the acceptance of the 5th State Pay Commission, declared the cut-off date as 01.07.2005 as revised pay scales pursuant to the Pay Commission Report had been implemented for Government employees with effect from 01.07.2005. Accordingly, Government Order dated 06.06.2007 was issued extending the benefit of revised pension and family pension to the persons who retired or died while in-service prior to 01.07.2005. As far as the employees of KPTCL is concerned, a Committee was constituted with regard to the revision of pensionary benefits and according to the said Committee, since revision of pay scales had been given with effect from 01.04.2003, the said date was reckoned in the revision of pensionary benefits also and accordingly, two orders revising pensionary benefits were issued. One in respect of employees who retired or died while in-service on or after 01.04.2003 on the lines of the benefits extended by Government Order dated 06.06.2007 and the second, in respect of employees who had retired from service or died while in-service prior to 01.04.2003 on the same lines as Government Order dated 06.06.2007. It is the case of the KPTCL that the Government has not extended weightage of 17.5% to the employees for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits to those who retired from service or died while in-service on or after 01.07.2005 for the reason that such employees were in service as on 01.07.2005 and they have been given the benefit of weightage of 12% at the time of fixation of pay and their pension has been calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn. However, the same treatment has not been meted out to those who are in service or died while in-service on or after 01.04.2003. It has also been admitted that the State Government while revising the pensionary benefits to those who retired from service or died while in-service prior to 01.07.2005 have been extended the weightage of 17.5% to the basic pension as there was no revision of pay scales to these pensioners. 10. It has also been admitted that the State Government while revising the pensionary benefits to those who retired from service or died while in-service prior to 01.07.2005 have been extended the weightage of 17.5% to the basic pension as there was no revision of pay scales to these pensioners. 10. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel along with counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel and counsel for the KPTCL and perused the material on record. 11. On behalf of the appellants, it was pointed out that there was a Settlement dated 25.09.2006 entered into between the Management of KPTCL and its Employees' Union regarding revision of pay scales and other allied benefits including pensionary benefits with effect from 01.04.2003. Consequently, order dated 27.09.2006 was issued by KPTCL approving the revision of pay scales. Clause XVIII thereof pertains to retirement/terminal benefits, wherein it is stated that pension including family pension would be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. Prior to this, order dated 06.06.2007 was issued by the State Government revising pension and family pension pursuant to the 5th State Pay Commission with regard to Government Servants who retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2005. Thereafter, order dated 31.08.2007 was passed by KPTCL revising pensionary benefits to the employees who retired or died while in service with effect from 01.04.2003 but that this order ignored inclusion of 17.5% to the basic pension. It was contended that the Memorandum of Settlement is binding on the parties as per Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, in the earlier writ petitions, in the additional statement of objections filed, it was admitted by KPTCL that while revision of pay scales to its employees is effected based on negotiations and settlements, but revision of pension of the retired employees is in accordance with the State Government Order issued from time to time, the basis and object behind both revisions being entirely different. Therefore, KPTCL ought to follow the Government Order dated 06.06.2007 in the revision of pensionary benefits in toto pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission and not as per the order of KPTCL dated 31.08.2007. Relying on certain decisions it was contended that the appeals would have to be allowed and the appellants would have to be granted pensionary benefits on par with the State Government Pensioners. 12. Relying on certain decisions it was contended that the appeals would have to be allowed and the appellants would have to be granted pensionary benefits on par with the State Government Pensioners. 12. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for KPTCL referred to para II of the KPTCL Order dated 27.09.2006 pertaining to fixation of pay which states that the pay shall be fixed in the corresponding revised scale of pay with effect from 01.04.2003 by adding 10% (later enhanced to 12%) to the existing basic pay as on 01.04.2003 and the revised basic pay was fixed with effect from 01.04.2003. That the pensioners who have retired subsequent to 01.04.2003 are not in any way deprived of their pensionary benefits as compared to those who retired prior to 01.04.2003 as they have had the benefit of revised basic pay. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals. Relying on certain decision, it was contended that the appeals have to be dismissed. 13. In reply, learned Senior Counsel stated that the binding Settlement must be implemented by all the parties thereto. The appellants are not assailing the quantum of pension received by them, but the basis on which pension has been computed. Reliance was placed on an order of the Division Bench dated 06.06.2012 in W.A.No.3191/2007 and it was contended that as far as fixation of pay scales is concerned, it is as per the order of the KPTCL, but as far as computation of pension is concerned, it has to be based on Government Orders and therefore, relief may be given to the appellants. 14. Having heard the counsel on both sides, the only point which arises for our consideration is as to whether the appellants/writ petitioners are entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of the Government Order dated 06.06.2007. 15. From the material on record it is not in dispute that the appellants have retired on attaining the age of superannuation between the period 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005. They have been receiving pension from the date of their retirement on attaining superannuation. It is the contention of the pensioners that KPTCL must follow the orders made by the State Government in the computation of pensionary benefits to its employees. They have been receiving pension from the date of their retirement on attaining superannuation. It is the contention of the pensioners that KPTCL must follow the orders made by the State Government in the computation of pensionary benefits to its employees. It is not in dispute that there was a Memorandum of Settlement entered into by KPTCL with its Employees Union on 25.09.2006 with regard to revision of pay scales as well as other matters including pensionary benefits. But with regard to those persons who retired prior to 01.07.2005, on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the Government of Karnataka issued Order dated 06.06.2007 revising the pension and family pension of the employees of the State Government. No doubt, by then, KPTCL has revised the pay scales with effect from 01.04.2003 and had extended 10% interim relief to pensioners. But the grievance of the pensioners is that KPTCL by order dated 31.08.2007 has not implemented the Government Order dated 06.06.2007 in toto to those who have retired between 01.04.2003 to 01.07.2005 by merging 71% D.A. and including 17.5% weightage. In response to the representations made by the pensioners' endorsement dated 15.09.2009 was issued stating that there is no disparity in take home pension of the employees who retired prior to 01.04.2003 and those who retired after 01.04.2003 as 17.5% weightage has been added to -: 61 :-pensioners who retired prior to 31.03.2003 and pay revision weightage has been sanctioned to the pensioners who retired after 01.04.2003. 16. In order to consider as to whether KPTCL is right in its endorsement, it is necessary to consider the Government Orders as well as the orders issued by KPTCL. The Memorandum of Settlement is dated 25.09.2006. KPTCL's order dated 27.09.2006 is with regard to revision of pay scales and allied matters and Clause XVIII categorically states that pensionary benefits including family pension shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time. In the meanwhile the Government of Karnataka had passed an order on 04.04.2006 wherein 10% interim relief was sanctioned to retired employees of the State Government. When the matters stood thus, by virtue of the 5th Pay Commission revised basic pension/family pension and D.A. allowance was issued by Government Order dated 06.06.2007 with regard to all Government Servants who had retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2005. Clause 2 reads as follows: "2. When the matters stood thus, by virtue of the 5th Pay Commission revised basic pension/family pension and D.A. allowance was issued by Government Order dated 06.06.2007 with regard to all Government Servants who had retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2005. Clause 2 reads as follows: "2. Revised pension and family pension:- 2.1 The revised pension and family pension of Government servants who have retired or died while in service prior to 1.7.2005 shall be the total of the following: (i) Basic pension/family pension as on 1.7.2005. (ii) Dearness allowance of 71% as on 1.7.2005 sanctioned in Government Order No.FD (Spl) 14 PET 2005 dated:15.11.2005 (iii) 17.5% of basic pension/family pension as on 1.7.2005 inclusive of 10% Interim Relief sanctioned in Government Order No.FD (Spl) 01 PEN 2006 dated: 4.4.2006. (iv) The increase in pension/family pension in respect of Government servants who retired prior to 1.1.1982 or died while in service prior to that date or after retirement, sanctioned in Government Order No.FD (Spl) 22 PET 94dated 29.6.1994." 17. Subsequently, KPTCL issued order dated 31.08.2007 with regard to revised pension of employees who had ceased to be in service on account of retirement or death while in service or after/prior to 01.04.2003. "1. Revised pension: 1.1 The revised pension in respect of the employees retired/retiring on or after 1.4.2003 shall be the total of the following: i) Basic pension sanctioned on the revised basic pay as on the date of his/her retirement consequent to revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.04.2003. ii) Dearness Allowance of 71% as on 1.7.2005 sanctioned in order No.KPTCL/B16/3611/2003-04 dated 01.12.2005 (on lines of GO.No. FD(Spl) 14 PET 2005 dated 15.11.2005)" 18. That on a comparative reading of the Government Order dated 06.06.2007 with the order of the KPTCL dated 31.08.2007, it is noticed that the Government Order is with regard to all Government Servants who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2005, while the order of the KPTCL is with regard to those who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.04.2003 i.e., 31.03.2003. As far as those who retired or died while in service subsequent to 01.04.2003 upto 01.07.2005, the contention of the pensioners is that basic pension/family pension as on 01.07.2005 has been paid. Also Dearness Allowance of 71% as on 01.07.2005 has been sanctioned by Government Order has been paid. As far as those who retired or died while in service subsequent to 01.04.2003 upto 01.07.2005, the contention of the pensioners is that basic pension/family pension as on 01.07.2005 has been paid. Also Dearness Allowance of 71% as on 01.07.2005 has been sanctioned by Government Order has been paid. But 17.5% weightage basic pay or family pension as on 01.07.2005 inclusive of 10% interim relief sanctioned by Government order dated 04.04.2006 has not been paid. The Government Order dated 06.06.2007 takes into consideration all Government Servants who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2005. But the order of KPTCL dated 31.08.2007 deals with those employees who retired or died while in service after 01.04.2003. Between 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2005 there has been no order passed by the KPTCL extending the Government Order dated 06.06.2007 with regard to 17.5% increase in basic pay/family pension as on 01.07.2005 inclusive of 10% interim relief sanctioned vide Government Order dated 04.04.2006. This aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 23.11.2009. 19. The grievance of the pensioners is that those pensioners who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation after 01.04.2003 are drawing lesser pension than those who retired from service from KPTCL prior to 01.04.2003. It is their grievance that weightage of 17.5% on the basic pension sanctioned by the Government has not been extended to them. As far as this aspect is concerned, with regard to employees who retired prior to 01.04.2003 i.e., prior to the date on which revision of pay scales took place, pension was fixed based on the last pay drawn as on that date plus weightage of 17.5% as sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka. The component of Dearness Allowance to the extent of 71% was also merged with effect from 01.07.2003. Insofar as employees who were in service on 31.03.2003 i.e., the date of revision of pay scales and retired subsequent to 01.04.2003 the pension was fixed on the basis of last drawn pay which included the basic pay in the pre-revised scale plus weightage of 12% sanctioned consequent to revision of pay scale plus there was mergable Dearness Allowance of 71%. The distinction is that these employees who retired prior to 01.04.2003 received weightage of 17.5% on their basic pension, whereas the employees who retired after 01.04.2003 had received 12% weightage on the basic pay and therefore, justification is sought to be made by KPTCL for not granting 17.5% weightage to the pension. 20. The contention of the KPTCL that there is no discrimination is not sustainable for the following reasons. Firstly, all the persons who were in service as on the date of the revision of pay scales i.e., 01.04.2003 were in any case entitled to the revision of pay scales and their last drawn pay would then be higher than those who retired prior to 01.04.2003. Those persons who retired after 01.04.2003 would have to receive the pensionary benefits as determined by the State Government as pensioners. In the same manner, those pensioners who retired prior to 01.04.2003 were extended the revised pensionary benefits. It is obvious that those who retired from service prior to 01.04.2003 i.e., the date of the revision of pay scales would be entitled only to revised pensionary benefits and not revised pay scales. On the other hand, those who are in service as on 01.04.2003 and retired subsequently would be entitled to both revised pay scales as well as revised pensionary benefits. In the absence of granting all components of pensionary benefits to those who have retired on or after 01.04.2003, obviously their pensions would be lesser than those who retired prior to 01.04.2003. Whereas, on the other hand, the pensionary benefits of those who retired subsequent to 01.04.2003 has to be higher than those who retired prior to 01.04.2003 since the former would have had the benefit of increase in pay scales and pension is calculated on the basis of last pay drawn which takes within its scope all increase in pay scales prior to date of retirement. Therefore, the contention of KPTCL that there is no discrimination between those who retired prior to 01.04.2003 and those who retired subsequent to the said date is not correct. 21. Ironically, KPTCL has taken into consideration the fact that there was revision of pay scales to all the persons who were in service as on 01.04.2003 and retired subsequent thereto for the purpose of denying them the pensionary benefits in terms of the Government Order dated 06.06.2007. 21. Ironically, KPTCL has taken into consideration the fact that there was revision of pay scales to all the persons who were in service as on 01.04.2003 and retired subsequent thereto for the purpose of denying them the pensionary benefits in terms of the Government Order dated 06.06.2007. The grant of revision of pay scales to all persons who were in service as on 01.04.2003 has no nexus to the determination of their pension in terms of the Government Order dated 06.06.2007. In this context, the following observations of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.Nos.319/2007 and connected matters disposed of on 06.06.2012 are apposite: "6. Admittedly, the pensioners were getting weightage based on the percentage fixed by the State Government to its retired employees for the purpose of calculation of pension. If the said percentage is consistently followed by the respondent-Corporation for fixing the revision of pension to the retired employees and if for any reasons there is a variation between in-service employees of the Corporation and that of the retired employees, the same cannot be illegal or unjust because on account of the settlement arrived at between the Union and the respondent in regard to the in-service employees, if there is any disparity, the appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the same. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this appeal." 22. In fact, in the said case, the retired employees had filed the writ petitions on the ground that there is a disparity and discrimination between in-service employees and retired employees. The writ petitions were dismissed. While dismissing the writ appeals, the aforesaid observations were made. From the same, it follows that the persons who are in service and pensioners are two categories apart and merely because the persons who were in service had the benefit at the time of revision of pay scales of increase in pay scales cannot be denied of the benefits of pension on retirement. 23. From the same, it follows that the persons who are in service and pensioners are two categories apart and merely because the persons who were in service had the benefit at the time of revision of pay scales of increase in pay scales cannot be denied of the benefits of pension on retirement. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision in the case of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 4 ) to contend that the settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union has extended application as it will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. That in the instant case, as per the settlement dated 25.09.2006, the pensionary benefits are regulated by the State Government and therefore, the pensioners of KPTCL are entitled to pension in terms of the orders of the State Government. 24. In fact, in D.S. Nakara & others V/s. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ), it has been held that classification in revised pension formula between pensioners on the basis of the retirement is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the said decision, the Supreme Court placed reliance on Articles 39 (e), 41, 43 (3) of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the matter of grant of pension to retired employees. The Apex Court held in the following terms: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to Rules which are statutory in character; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 25. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 25. On the other hand, reliance placed on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the learned Senior Counsel for the KPTCL are of no assistance or on the contrary are in favour of the appellants. In the case of Krishena Kumar V/s. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 1782 ) option given to the Railway employees to switch over to a pension scheme from a specified cut-off date was held to be non-discriminatory. In Indian Ex-Services League V/s. Union of India ( AIR 1991 SC 1182 ) it was held that with regard to pre-01.04.1979 retirees of the Armed Forces, a claim by them for one rank for one pension was not tenable. 26. In Union of India V/s. P.N. Menon ( AIR 1994 SC 2221 ) merger of Dearness Allowance with pay for retrial benefits to those Government Servants who retired on or before a cut-off date was held to be non-discriminatory. 27. In State of Punjab V/s. S.S. Dewan ( AIR 1997 SC 2388 ), it was held that a High Court Judge who retired before coming into force of amended Rule 16 of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 and opted for fixation of pension under Part III of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, (28 of 1954) was not entitled to benefit of addition of ten years of practice at the Bar while computing qualifying service. 28. In Kasturi V/s. M.D., State Bank of India, Bombay, ( AIR 1999 SC 81 ), it was held that the benefit of amended pension scheme would be available to a retiree depending upon his eligibility or non-eligibility for pension at the time of his retirement and not otherwise. Similarly, in State of Punjab & others V/s. Boota Singh & another (2000) 3 SCC 733 ), it was held that liberalised retrial benefits introduced after a person's retirement would not be applicable as the date of the retirement has to be the reckoning date. 29. Similarly, in State of Punjab & others V/s. Boota Singh & another (2000) 3 SCC 733 ), it was held that liberalised retrial benefits introduced after a person's retirement would not be applicable as the date of the retirement has to be the reckoning date. 29. In State of Punjab V/s. J.L.Gupta ( AIR 2000 SC 3410 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that employees of State of Punjab retiring prior to 31st March 1985 could not claim under notification dated 09.07.1985 which was made applicable to those who retired subsequently. However, in the instant case, the persons who have retired subsequent to 01.04.2003 have been deprived fullpensionary benefits as opposed to those who had retired prior to the said date. 30. On the other hand, in State of West Bengal V/s. West Bengal Government Pensioners Association ( AIR 2002 SC 538 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that when pay scales of State Government employees were revised with effect from 01.01.1986 pension of post 01.01.1986 retirees was re-calculated accordingly. Pre-01.01.1986 retirees whose scales were not revised who claimed parity in pension amount even though the pension formula applied to both was same. Applying the same to the instant case, all pensioners who retired post-01.04.2003 would be entitled to computation of pension on the basis of revised pay scales received when they were in service and on the basis of the last pay drawn as compared to those who were not in service as on the said date. 31. In State of Punjab V/s. Amar Nath Goyal ( AIR 2006 SC 171 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the policy decision by Central Government/State governments to limit benefits only to employees, who retired or died on or after particular cut-off date. 32. In State of Bihar & others V/s. Bihar Pensioners Samaj ( AIR 2006 SC 2100 ), fixation of the cut-off date with regard to revised pensionary benefit was held to be not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. To the same effect is the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh V/s. N.Subbarayadu & others ( 2008 (14) SCC 702 . However, the aforesaid two decisions are of Smaller Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as compared to the Larger Bench decision in Nakara's case. To the same effect is the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh V/s. N.Subbarayadu & others ( 2008 (14) SCC 702 . However, the aforesaid two decisions are of Smaller Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as compared to the Larger Bench decision in Nakara's case. The aforesaid two decisions have tried to distinguish the dictum in Nakara's case, but reliance placed on the said decisions in the context of the factual matrix, which arises in these cases, would not be of any assistance to the respondent-KPTCL. 33. Therefore, what emerges is that a Settlement made with employees' union is binding on the management and in the instant case, when in terms of Clause XVIII of the Settlement dated 25.09.2006, it is stated that pensionary benefits including family pension shall be regulated as prevailing in the State Government from time to time, the same must be made fully applicable to those employees who retired from 01.04.2003 onwards particularly those who retired between 01.04.2003 and 01.04.2005. The orders of the learned Single Judges, therefore, call for interference in these writ appeals. The said orders are set aside. The writ appeals are allowed. The endorsement dated 23.09.2009 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend a revised pension/family pension to the appellants and all persons similarly situated in terms of the State Government Order dated 06.06.2007. No costs.