JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 19.12.1998 and consequently for a direction to the 4th respondent to continue the Diocesan Pension Scheme in addition to the other benefits as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant in the 4th respondent school on 23.06.1977. The 4th respondent school introduced Diocesan Pension Scheme with effect from 01.06.1974 and as per the said scheme, the staff who have not reached 50 years are eligible for admission to the scheme and they should contribute 3% of the basic pay and Diocesan should contribute double the amount. After the retirement of the employee, the pension fund would be utilised for paying the pension at a particular rate. The petitioner opted for the Diocesan Pension Scheme and made contribution. The Employees' Pension Scheme has been subsequently introduced in the 4th respondent school on 16.11.1995 and all the employees were compelled to join the said scheme by making contribution to the said fund. Consequently, the Diocesan Pension Scheme was withdrawn with effect from 01.04.1998, by the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.1998. Thus, aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that Diocesan Pension Scheme should not be withdrawn and it should be continued in addition to the Employees Pension Scheme available under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. It is an admitted fact that Diocesan Pension Scheme is not formulated in pursuance to any enactment. It is also seen that a similar writ petition filed by another staff of the 4th respondent school challenging the very same impugned order came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 05.10.2009 in W.P.No.10145 of 2002. The learned Judge has observed that what was sought to be enforced is a scheme said to have been floated by the third respondent management therein, admittedly, not in pursuance of any enactment. Therefore, the learned Judge has observed that the same cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition. It is seen that the said order has not been set aside so far and as such the same is binding on the parties. 4. Therefore, the learned Judge has observed that the same cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition. It is seen that the said order has not been set aside so far and as such the same is binding on the parties. 4. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to take a different view by relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shalimar Paints H.O. Employees Union Vs. Shalimar Paints Ltd., reported in 1981 I L.L.J. 471 to contend that both schemes can be simultaneously implemented. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the employees therein on retirement were entitled for pension payable in terms of settlement and therefore the Court held that under the settlement, payment of Gratuity was not an alternative to the payment of pension and therefore the employees who are entitled for pension on retirement are also entitled to an additional benefit of payment of minimum amount of gratuity as prescribed by the said Act. 5. Certainly the facts are totally different and distinguishable in the case before the Calcutta High Court. It is seen that based on the settlement arrived at between the employer and employees they were given some benefits which the Court found that the same is liable to be continued as an additional benefit of payment of minimum amount of gratuity as prescribed by such enactment. As already cited supra, the Diocesan Pension Scheme was not in pursuance to any enactment and therefore based on that, the petitioner cannot seek any relief for continuing the same in addition to the pension scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. When admittedly, the petitioner had joined the subsequent scheme introduced by the said Act, then she cannot compel the management to continue the old scheme also. 6. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances as well as in view of the fact that a similar prayer was rejected by this Court in W.P.No.10145 of 2002 dated 05.10.2009, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.