JUDGMENT 1. In W.A.No.355/2013, order dated 14.12.2012 made in W.P.No.3198/2007, filed by Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, has been challenged. In W.A.Nos.688 to 690/2013, common order dated 14.12.2012 made in W.P.Nos.50000 to 50002 of 2006, has been challenged. 2. All the above said writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 14.12.2012. Hence all these writ appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment. 3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions, have been narrated in detail in the above said common order. Therefore, it is unnecessary to reiterate once again except stating the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. 4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.3198/2007, namely, Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, averred among other things that he retired from the services as an Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank on 31.01.1993, and in terms of Clause (1) of Regulation 37 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, employees who retired on or after 01.01.1986 but before the 1st day of July 1993, have been granted basic pension or family pension or invalid pension or on compassionate allowance as enumerated in Appendix II of the above said Pension Regulations. The writ petitioner would further state that the salary payable to the serving officers/employees were again revised by way of Joint Note and for serving staff by the 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, with effect from 01.11.2002. As per the Joint Note on the above said Settlement, merger of Dearness Allowance upto 2288 points in Consumer Price Index series 1960=100 with Basic Pay was effected and thereby 100% neutralization at 0.18% of Basic Pay was effected. 5. As per the Joint Note on the above said Settlement, merger of Dearness Allowance upto 2288 points in Consumer Price Index series 1960=100 with Basic Pay was effected and thereby 100% neutralization at 0.18% of Basic Pay was effected. 5. We may mention here that by Appendix-II of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, the Dearness Allowance payable to the eligible officers including the sole respondent in W.A.No.355 of 2012 was as follows:- Appendix-II (See regulation 37) Dearness relief on basic pension shall be as under:- (1) In the case of employees, who were in the workmen cadre, and who retired on or after the 1st day of January, 1986, but before the 1st day of November, 1992; and in the case of employees who were in the Officers' cadre and who retired on or after 1st day of January, 1986, but before the 1st day of July, 1993, dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or be recoverable for a every fall as the case may be, of every four points over 600 points in the quarterly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be calculated in the manner give below:- “TABLE” (Government Gazette Notification No.9 dated 1st March, 2013) However, in case of employees, who are in the Officers' cadre and who retired after 1st July, 1993, the dearness relief was payable under paragraph-2 of Appendix=II as follows:- "In the case of employees, who were in workmen cadre, and who retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1992, and in the case of employees who are in the Officers' cadre and who retire on or after 1st day of July, 1993, dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or be recoverable for a every fall, as the case may be, of every four points over 1148 points in the quarterly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be calculated in the manner give below:- (Government Gazette Notification No.9 dated 1st March, 2013) “TABLE” 6. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be calculated in the manner give below:- (Government Gazette Notification No.9 dated 1st March, 2013) “TABLE” 6. In the 8th Bipartite Settlement signed on 2nd June, 2005 between the Indian Banks' Association and various Banks' Associations, excluding State Bank of India, the dearness relief on pension up till 01.05.2005 payable to the employees who retired during the period 01.04.1998 to 31.10.2002 was as follows:- Dearness Relief on Pension PART - A On and from 01.05.2005, in the case of employees who retired during the period 01.04.98 to 31.10.2002, dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1684 points in the quarterly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be calculated in the manner given below:- 7. In respect of employees, who have retired on or after 01.05.2005, the dearness relief was payable as follows:- “TABLE” "In respect of employees who retire on or after 01.05.2005, dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 2288 points in the quarterly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100, at the rate of 0.18% of basic pension. Note:- In respect of retirees of the period 01.11.2002 to 30.04.2005, for whom pension will be revised w.e.f 01.05.2005, in terms of paragraph 4(1) of this Circular, dearness relief shall be payable at 0.18% of basic pension w.e.f 01.05.2005." 8. According to the writ petitioner, employees/pensioners who retired between 01.11.2002 and 31.01.2005, Dearness Relief should have been calculated and paid on the same basis pending amendment to the above said Pension Regulations, in the following manner: 9. According to the writ petitioner, employees/pensioners who retired between 01.11.2002 and 31.01.2005, Dearness Relief should have been calculated and paid on the same basis pending amendment to the above said Pension Regulations, in the following manner: 9. The grievance expressed by the writ petitioner, is that the employees who retired on or after 01.02.2005, are being paid Dearness Relief at 0.18% for the entire basic pay, which works out to 100% neutralization after merger of Dearness Allowance at 2288 points of Consumer Price Index 1960 = 100, doing away with the tapering formula of calculating Dearness Relief on sliding down slab rates pending amendment to the Pension Regulations and the Indian Overseas Bank has extended the benefit of 100% neutralization on entire basic pension i.e., 0.18% to the employees who retired between 01.11.2002 and 31.01.2005, although it is not available to them in terms of para 2(b) of the Joint Note/Clause 7(2) of the 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, but in respect of the petitioner, who retired on superannuation on 31.01.1993, the same benefit was not given and it clearly amounts to discrimination. 10. The writ petitioner would further submit that in this regard, he submitted a detailed representation with the Management of the Indian Overseas Bank requesting them to pay Dearness Relief at 0.18% on his entire pension with effect from 01.02.2006 and since no response was forthcoming, he has filed W.P.No.3198/2007 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Management of the Indian Overseas Bank to pay the petitioner on and from 01.02.2005, 100% neutralization of Dearness Relief on entire basic pension, which is 0.67%. 11. The Management of the Indian Overseas Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petitioner, namely, Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, joined the services of the Bank on 07.11.1955, and while working as an Officer in Middle Management Grade III, he retired from the services of the Bank on 31.01.1993, and subsequent to his retirement, a Memorandum of Settlement came into being between Indian Bank's Association (in short 'IBA') and the employees' representatives, wherein it has been agreed to introduce a Pension Scheme in lieu of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund. The writ petitioner in terms of the said Scheme, exercised his option for payment of pension and accordingly, pension is paid to him in terms of the Wage Settlement/Joint Note, which were in force at the relevant point of time and he is also being paid Dearness Relief on the salary and pension at the slab rates prevailing at that point of time. 12. The respondent/Management further contended that the Basic Pay and Dearness Relief of all the Bank employees are based on the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note reached between the Management of the Bank and Employees' Union/Association and would further state that 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note was entered on 02.06.2005, with effect from 31.10.2007 and in terms of the said Settlement/Joint Note, in respect of employees who retired between 01.11.2002 and 30.04.2005, pension was to be revised with effect from 01.05.2005 and the Dearness Relief was given at 0.18% of the basic pension with effect from 01.05.2005. The said relief was given for the reason that the classification would result in two classes of persons, who are governed by the same settlement, and a Circular dated 28.06.2005, was also issued stating that in respect of the employees who retired between 01.11.2002 and 30.04.2005, pension would be revised with effect from 01.05.2005 and Dearness Relief would be payable at 0.18% of the basic pension with effect from 01.05.2005. 13. The respondent/Management also took a stand that since the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition, as he is not governed by the 8th Bipartite Settlement, as he retired on 31.01.1993, and since the 8th Bipartite Settlement came into being subsequently, he cannot be paid Dearness Relief at 0.18% of the basic pension. Therefore, the respondent Management prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. In W.P.Nos.50000 to 50002 of 2006, the employees/writ petitioners were employed in Canara Bank and they retired between 30.04.1998 to 31.07.2001 and like the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3198/2007, they have also made representations to the Management of the Canara Bank praying for payment of Dearness Relief at 0.18% on their entire basic pension with effect from 01.02.2005 and it was declined. The Management of the Canara Bank also filed a common counter affidavit in the above said writ petitions, taking the very same stand. 15. The Management of the Canara Bank also filed a common counter affidavit in the above said writ petitions, taking the very same stand. 15. The writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.50000 to 50002 of 2006 filed respective Miscellaneous Petitions praying for amendment of the prayer viz., to call for the records and quash clause 2b of the Joint Note dated 02.06.2005, and Clause 7 of the Settlement dated 02.06.2005, insofar as not extending the benefit of the the Dearness Relief of 100% neutralization on the entire basic pension for those who retired earlier to 01.11.2002, and forbearing the respondent/Management of the Canara Bank from passing any amendment to pension Regulations, 1995, as per the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, excluding the petitioners who retired from service earlier to 01.11.20052, and for other consequential benefits and the same were ordered. 16. A Single Bench of this Court after analysis of the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, and the counter affidavits filed by the Management of the Indian Overseas Bank and Canara Bank and further, taking into consideration the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, more particularly, the decisions in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 ], V.Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India [ (1998) 8 SCC 30 ] and other decisions, found that the benefits would extend even to the employees who retired during the period between 01.04.1998 and 30.04.2005, and the Circular dated 28.06.2005, is very clear that the pension of the employees who retired subsequent to 01.04.1998, should be revised by taking Dearness Allowance at the slab rate of 0.18% of the basic pension. The learned Single Judge further found that the redefinition of pay for the purpose of pension cannot be treated as a new scheme and on facts, found that the writ petitioners have not opted for a particular scheme as there was only one scheme for the payment of pension and amendment came into being only for the purpose of redefinition of pay and it was in the nature of procedural amendment and consequently, they are also entitled to the benefits of the new formula of computation, without any claim for arrears. 17. 17. The learned Single Judge further found that All India Overall Working Class Consumers Price Index remain the same not only for the employees who have retired subsequent to the 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint Note, but also for the others like the writ petitioners, who have retired before the cut-off date in question, and that the Dearness Relief at 0.18% of the basic pension was introduced taking into account the All India Overall Working Class Consumers Price Index and the inflation and price increase also affects the retired employees irrespective of the date of retirement. The learned Single Judge for the above cited reasons, held that the benefits of such redefinition of pay for the purpose of pension should be given to all the pensioners without any distinction and that the petitioners have been subjected to discriminatory and hostile treatment by fixing an artificial and arbitrary cut-off date and thereby, allowed all the writ petitions and directed the Management of the Indian Overseas Bank and the Canara Bank to extend the benefits of 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint Note, as given to the employees who have retired between 01.11.2002 and 31.10.2007, to the writ petitioners also within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said common order. 18. Aggrieved by the same, the Management of the Indian Overseas Bank has filed W.A.No.355/2013 and the Management of the Canara Bank has filed W.A.Nos.688 to 690/2013. 19. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.P.No.355/2013, and Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.688 to 690/2013, vehemently contended that as per the Pension Regulations, which was notified in the year 1995, a distinction has been drawn in respect of employees who retired on or after 01.01.1996, and a different formula has also been introduced depending upon the merger of Dearness Allowance with Basic Pay. It is further For basis pension (BP) upto Rs 4825 DR @ 0.18% of BP For next slab of Rs.2850 of BP DR @ 0.15% For next -Rs 500 of BP DR @ 0.09% For further quantum of BP, if any DR @ 0.04% contended that the benefits of 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note were made applicable only to the employees who were in service as on 01.11.2002, because the earlier settlement, namely, 7th Bipartite Settlement expired on 31.10.2002, and as the respective writ petitioners have retired prior to the said Settlement/Joint Note, they are not entitled to the benefits of the same. It is also contended that since the writ petitioners and employees, who are covered by the 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note, retired at different points of time, the writ petitioners cannot claim the benefits extended to the above said employees on the ground that they are similarly placed and therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution has no application to their case at all. Lastly, it is contended that the Scheme is a Contributory Pension Scheme and if the impugned orders are given effect to, it would definitely cause huge financial burden as it is a recurring expenditure and it would be difficult for the Pension Trust to meet such huge commitment and therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned common order passed in the above said writ petitions. The respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants also placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Herbertsons Ltd., v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd., and Others reported in AIR 1977 SC 322 , (ii) K.C.P. Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 446 , and (iii) State of W.B. and Another v. W.B. Govt. Pensioners' Associations and Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 179 . 20. Per contra, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.Nos.688 to 690/2013 and Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, the respondent in W.A.No.355/2013, submitted that the main dispute is with regard to the Dearness Allowance and not with regard to the rate of pension and therefore, the grounds urged by the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants, have no legs to stand. Per contra, Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.Nos.688 to 690/2013 and Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran, the respondent in W.A.No.355/2013, submitted that the main dispute is with regard to the Dearness Allowance and not with regard to the rate of pension and therefore, the grounds urged by the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants, have no legs to stand. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, that the inflationary trend affects all the persons whether they are serving employees or pensioners, and taking into consideration this crucial and vital aspect, the learned Single Judge, on a thorough analysis of factual and legal aspects, found that the benefits of redefinition of pay for the purpose of pension should be given to all pensioners without any distinction and the said finding warrants no interference. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of the submissions, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association v. State of T.N. [ (2013) 2 SCC 772 = 2013-II-LLJ-9(SC)]. 21. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed-set of documents and also the decisions cited before it. 22. It is useful and relevant to extract the Circular dated 28.06.2005, issued by the Personnel Department of Indian Banks' Association, which reads as follows: "Indian Banks' Association PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT No.CIR/PD/76/D/G2/2005-06/557 28th June, 2005 Designated officers of all banks which are parties to the 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 and Joint Note dated 02.06.2005 on salary revision Dear Sirs, Calculation and payment of pension consequent upon the re-definition of 'pay' in Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 02.06.2005 In terms of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 relating to workmen and Paragraph 6 of the Joint Note dated 02.06.2005 relating officers, in respect of an officer or a workman employee (herein referred to as 'employee'), who is a member of the pension fund and retiring/retired from service or died while in service or otherwise ceased to be in employment (hereinafter commonly referred to as retired/retirement) on or after, 1.5.2005, 'pay' to be reckoned for the purpose of arriving at 'average emoluments' for calculating pension shall be the 'pay' drawn by him prior to his retirement/death. 'Pay' here will have the same meaning as in Clause 6 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 and Note (2) below Paragraph 6 of the Joint Note dated 02.06.2005. 2. In view of the foregoing, in respect of an employee retiring/retired on or after 01.05.2005, for arriving at pension to be sanctioned, 'average emoluments' for the purpose shall be calculated reckoning actual 'pay' drawn in terms of the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 02.06.2005. 3. As a consequence of the re-definition of 'pay' for the purpose of pension as stated herein above and in view of the legal position obtaining in this regard, pension already sanctioned and being paid to retirees of the period 1st April 1998 to 31st October 2002 and of the period 1st November 2002 to 30th April 2005 is to be revised with reference to the new definition of pay as referred to in Paragraph 1 above and pension so revised paid to them with effect from 1st May 2005. On account of such revision of pension, no arrears of pension and/or difference in commuted value of pension is payable to the retirees of these periods. 4. Pension in respect of the retirees of the periods mentioned in paragraph (3) above, shall be revised as per procedure detailed herein below: I. In respect of an employee who retired during the period from 1st November 2002 to 30th April 2005- (a) If such retirement has taken place on or after 1st September 2003, i.e. after drawing 'pay' in the last 10 months of service in terms of Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 02.06.2005, then 'average emoluments' for arriving at pension shall be calculated reckoning 'pay' as in Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 02.06.2005. (b) If such retirement has taken place on or after 1st November 2002 but on or after 31st August 2003 i.e. after drawing pay in the last 10 months of service, both in terms of Joint Note dated 14.12.99/Bipartite Settlement dated 27.03.2000 and Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 02.06.05, then revision of pension shall be done as per example illustrated in Annexure-I of this circular. II. II. In respect of an employee who retired during the period from 1st April 1998 to 31st October 2002- (a) If such retirement had taken place on or after 01.09.98 in the case of a workman and 01.02.99 in the case of an officer i.e. after drawing pay in the last 10 months of service in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 27.03.2000/Joint Note dated 14.12.99 then 'average emoluments' for arriving at pension may be calculated reckoning 'pay' as in Bipartite Settlement dated 27.03.2000/Joint Note dated 14.12.99. (b) If such retirement has taken place during the period 01.11.97 to 31.08.98 in the case of workmen and during the period 01.04.98 to 31.01.99 in the case of officers i.e after drawing pay in the last 10 months of service, both in terms of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.95/Joint Note dated 23.06.95 and Bipartite Settlement dated 27.03.2000/Joint Note dated 14.12.99, then revision of pension in such cases may be done as per example illustrated in Annexure-II to this circular. (c) In the Bipartite Settlement dated 27.03.2000, revision in Special Pay, Graduation Pay and Personal Qualification Pay had taken place from 01.04.98 and of Fixed Personal Pay from 01.11.99. In cases falling under (a) and (b) above, if an employee during the last 10 months of service, had drawn the above components of 'pay' at rates obtaining prior to 01.04.98 or 01.11.99, as the case may be, then for the purpose of calculating average emoluments, the aggregate of such component of 'pay' with Dearness Allowance there on at CPI 1684 points may be reckoned. 5. Dearness Relief on basic pension computed as above shall be at rates as given in Annexure-III to this circular. 6. The ordinary rates of family pension shall be as given in Annexure-IV to this circular. 7. The amount of minimum pension shall be given in Annexure V to this circular. 8. Pending amendments to Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, bank may compute pension as above. Before, however, giving effect to the revised pension, a suitable undertaking may be obtained from the pensioners, as well as from family members/nominees, to enable the Pension Fund to make adjustments, if any, at a later date. 23. A perusal of the above cited Circular would disclose that redefinition of pay for the purpose of calculating pension has been made applicable to the employees who retired up to 01.11.2002. 23. A perusal of the above cited Circular would disclose that redefinition of pay for the purpose of calculating pension has been made applicable to the employees who retired up to 01.11.2002. It is also relevant to point out at this juncture, that the benefit of the same has been extended to the employees who retired between 01.04.1998 and 31.10.2002, and it is also made clear that in respect of the employees who retired subsequent to 01.04.1998, pension should be revised by taking into account the Dearness Relief at the slab rate of 0.18% of the basic pension. 24. The stand of the respondent Banks is that since there was distinction between two classes of persons who are governed by the same settlement, the benefits were extended to the employees who retired between 01.11.2002 and 30.04.2005. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the judgment reported in (1997) 4 SCC 569 [State of Punjab vs. Justice S.S.Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) and Others] and formulated a question as to whether the change made to the mode of calculation of the last drawn pay for the purpose of fixing tax, would apply to the pensioners who retired earlier. The learned Single Judge found that earlier the writ petitioners prayed for the Dearness Relief at the slab rate of 0.18% of basic pension in terms of 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note and hence the change from tapering rate to slab rate cannot be characterized as introduction of a new scheme and it was essentially a modification of the existing scheme. 25. It is further contended that a settlement arrived in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would bind the parties and since the benefit of pension conferred on the respondents not on account of statutory right but only on account of the settlement, they are not entitled to the benefits of the 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note. 26. The respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants also drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Herbertsons Ltd., v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd., and Others [ AIR 1977 SC 322 ] and K.C.P.Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others [ (1996) 10 SCC 446 ]. 26. The respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants also drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Herbertsons Ltd., v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd., and Others [ AIR 1977 SC 322 ] and K.C.P.Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others [ (1996) 10 SCC 446 ]. It is also submitted by the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants that prescription of cut-off date for giving benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary and irrational. 27. In Herbertsons Ltd., v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd., and Others [ AIR 1977 SC 322 ], an issue arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as to whether the workers, as individuals, who do not come into picture, is to be made aware of the implication of the settlement entered into by the recognized Union with the Management and as to whether it is binding on them also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the said issue and held as follows: "21. Besides, the settlement has to be considered in the light of the conditions that were in force at the time of the reference. It will not be correct to judge the settlement merely in the light of the award which was pending appeal before this Court. So far as the parties are concerned there will always be uncertainty with regard to the result of the litigation in a court proceeding. When, therefore, negotiations take place which have to be encouraged, particularly between labour and employer in the interest of general peace and well-being, there is always give and take. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, which was raised as back as 1968, the very fact of the existence of a litigation with regard to the same matter which was bound to take some time must have influenced both the parties to come to some settlement. The settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when labour has gained in the matter of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of dearness allowance so far as the award is concerned, it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. 25. There may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining. 25. There may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining. Once cordiality is established between the employer and labour in arriving at a settlement which operates well for the period that it is in force, there is always a likelihood of further advances in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement avoiding friction and unhealthy litigation. This is the quintessence of settlement which courts and tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. The Tribunal fell into an error in invoking the principles that should govern in adjudicating a dispute regarding dearness allowance in judging whether the settlement was just and fair. 27. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair and unjust......" 28. In the subsequent decision in K.C.P. Limited v. Presiding Officer and Others [ (1996) 10 SCC 446 ], the Herbertsons case (cited sd appropriate direction in this regard, which we would like to respectfully follow. We also feel that it would be unfair not to give appropriate direction when the Honourable Apex Court in similar matters passed such orders. Further, if we hold that the impugned Rule does not apply to the vacancies that has arisen during the pendency of the old rule, then the consequence would necessarily follow. We are of the view that this issue is also covered by the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in P.MURUGESAN AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS referred supra. 5.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents made reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. SHRI TRILOKI NATH KHOSA AND OTHERS (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 19. We are afraid that the decision does not have any application to the cases on hand. 5.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents made reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. SHRI TRILOKI NATH KHOSA AND OTHERS (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 19. We are afraid that the decision does not have any application to the cases on hand. The issue before the Apex Court was as to whether a rule can be applied to the existing employee. Therefore, the issue as to whether a new rule would cover the vacancies in the old rule for the purpose of promotion, has not been dealt with. On the contrary, the Honourable Apex Court in B.L. GUPTA AND ANOTHER V. M.C.D (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 223, has held as follows: 9. When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education4 it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done. 5.4. In the subsequent decision, the Honourable Apex Court in A.MANOHARAN AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 641 was pleaded to observe as follows: "25. Furthermore, the Regulations have been amended only with effect from 11.08.2004. It would have a prospective effect. 5.4. In the subsequent decision, the Honourable Apex Court in A.MANOHARAN AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 641 was pleaded to observe as follows: "25. Furthermore, the Regulations have been amended only with effect from 11.08.2004. It would have a prospective effect. It cannot be applied retrospectively. Any vacancy which has arisen prior to coming into force of the said amended Regulations must be filled up in terms of the law as was existing prior therefore. (State of Rajasthan V. R.Dayal, SCC para 8.)" 5.5. Further more, the judgment, which has been relied upon substantially by the respondents in P.MURUGESAN AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 340 itself deals with the said issue in extenso. It is useful to extract the following paragraph. "27. In our opinion Section 87 does indicate and manifest the concern of the legislature that the vacancies occurring in the Corporation Service should not be kept unfilled for a period of more than three months. Sub-section (3) which provides for the consequence of default on the part of the council to abide by sub-section (1) emphasises the concern of the Legislature. So also does sub-section (2). Sub-section (4) says that if there is going to be any delay or if a suitable or qualified person is not available, the council may appoint a person on temporary basis. The said provision is, therefore, analogous to, and indeed more specific than Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules considered in Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao. Accordingly it must be held that the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 is right in his submission that the vacancies occurring prior to three months before the date of commencement of the impugned amendment ought to have been filled in accordance with the rules then obtaining. At the same time we cannot fail to recognise the force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents not having raised the said contention in the High Court i.e., before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench should not be allowed to raise the same in this Court for the first time. At the same time we cannot fail to recognise the force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents not having raised the said contention in the High Court i.e., before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench should not be allowed to raise the same in this Court for the first time. On a balancing of the contending equities, we are of the opinion that the following direction would be the appropriate one in the particular facts and circumstances of this case. The direction is this: The Corporation shall ascertain the vacancies in the category of assistant executive engineers, that have arisen three months prior to the coming into force of the impugned amendment (introducing the quota of 3:1 as between degree-holders and Diploma-holders) and shall work out the vacancies which would have gone to the Diploma-holders if unamended rules had been followed. The Corporation shall also ascertain which of the Diploma-holders would have been promoted in those vacancies. Such Diploma-holders will be promoted in the vacancies that may be existing as on today and those that may arise in future. Until these Diploma-holders are so promoted to the category of assistant executive engineers, no degree-holders shall be promoted. After these Diploma-holders are so promoted and thereafter, it is obvious the amended rules shall be applied and followed. It is further directed that as and when a diploma-holder is promoted in pursuance of this direction, his promotion shall be given effect to from the date he ought to have been promoted. Such diploma-holder promotees shall be entitled to the benefit of seniority and pay fixation flowing from such retrospective promotions, but they shall not be entitled to the arrears of difference in salary for the period they have not actually worked as assistant executive engineers." 5.6. A faint attempt was made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that there is no mandate to prepare the seniority list. We do not agree with the said submission. A faint attempt was made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that there is no mandate to prepare the seniority list. We do not agree with the said submission. The Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Service Rules 1997, while dealing with the promotion, stated as follows: "(i)....The competent Authority shall prepare a panel of names of the eligible persons from the feeder categories every year and send a list of approved candidates to the Appointing Authority." The records also would reveal that respondents 1 and 2 were in the process of preparing the panel for the year 2009-2010. They did not publish the same, in view of the then pending proposal to introduce the impugned rule by way of amendment to Rule 3. Therefore, looking from any angle, we are of the considered view that such of the Diploma-holders, who would otherwise be eligible to be considered for the vacancies available prior to the impugned rule, will have to be considered under the old Rule to the promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer, of course in accordance with law. 5.7. Accordingly we hold that the writ appeals are dismissed in so far as the challenge made to the impugned rule. No costs. However, the impugned rule is not applicable to the vacancies available prior to its introduction. We also do not propose to go into the exact number of vacancies that existed prior to the impugned rules as it is left in the hands of respondents 1 and 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and after relying on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in P.MURUGESAN AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS referred supra, we issue the following directions. (i) Such of those appellants/Diploma-holders, who would have been otherwise considered for the vacancies that were in existence prior to the coming into the force of the impugned rule will have to be considered for the promotional posts of Assistant Executive Engineer under the old rule. This direction is subject to their qualification and eligibility in accordance with the rules. (ii) The individuals, who are promoted and accordingly covered by the first direction issued by us, will carry forward their seniority, which shall be given effect to from the date they ought to have been promoted. This direction is subject to their qualification and eligibility in accordance with the rules. (ii) The individuals, who are promoted and accordingly covered by the first direction issued by us, will carry forward their seniority, which shall be given effect to from the date they ought to have been promoted. (iii) Such Diploma-holders/promotees shall be entitled to the benefits of seniority and pay fixation flowing from such retrospective promotions. However, they shall not be entitled to the arrears of difference in salary for the period they did not actually work as Assistant Executive Engineers. (iv) Those Executive Engineers, who have already been promoted under the new rules and who would have been promoted as per the old rules, shall not be disturbed. However they cannot claim seniority over those Diploma-holders/promotees, if they are juniors to them in the combined category of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer. (v) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to identify the then available vacancies which were available prior to the coming into force of the amended rules and fill the same as per the directions issued earlier within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall also comply with the other directions also within the said time. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.