JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the respondent No. 1 to release the remaining 32% of the amount towards 10% of the employer's share of the petitioners and all its retired members alongwith interest at the rate of 12%. In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of retired and working employees of the M.P. State Ware Housing & Logistic Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ''respondent No. 1") which is duly registered under the provisions of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. In. the year 1996-97, a pension scheme was floated by the respondent No. 1 in collaboration with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 2") under which 10% employer's share which was being deposited under the provisions of the scheme, namely, Contributory Fund Scheme, was transferred to the respondent No. 1 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 started depositing its 10% employer's share in the form of premium to respondent No. 2 per month. Under the said Scheme, the premium of 10% employer's share was to be deposited by respondent No. 1 till the date of retirement of particular employee and thereafter on the basis of aforesaid corpus amount of particular employee, the respondent No. 2 was obliged to pay the pensionary benefits to the concerned employee calculating the retiral benefits at the rate of 45%. 2. Nearly, 1499 employees of the respondent No. 1 including the petitioner and its members submitted their option for the aforesaid pension scheme in lieu of their 10% employer's share. As per the Agreement arrived at between the respondents a Trust was created and a Trust Deed was executed on 20.2.1977 pursuant to which a Master Policy dated 15.3.2007 containing the provisions regarding payment of pension to the employees was issued. The aforesaid pension policy continued uninterrupted till 1999-2000 and nearly 131 retired employees were getting the benefit of the scheme of pension. However, thereafter a dispute arose in respect of payment of premium as the rate of interest fell down as well as in view of the fact that aforesaid 131 employees received retrial benefits at the rate of 45% in lieu of their employer's share towards premium at the rate of 10% only. However, thereafter a dispute arose in respect of payment of premium as the rate of interest fell down as well as in view of the fact that aforesaid 131 employees received retrial benefits at the rate of 45% in lieu of their employer's share towards premium at the rate of 10% only. The respondent No. 2 thereupon insisted the respondent No. 1 to pay premium at the rate of more than 10% of the employer's share arid for execution of Variation Deed for changing the pension Scheme to Defined Benefit instead of Defined Contribution Scheme. A Variation Deed was executed between the respondents on 18.7.2000. 3. Being aggrieved by the stoppage of pension under the aforesaid scheme, 131 retired employees filed writ petitions before the High Court in which pension and other benefits were claimed. The writ petitions were decided by a Bench of this Court by common order dated 08.4.2004 commanding the respondents to continue with the pension policy and the respondent No. 1 was directed to pay amount of Rs. 3.38 crores to respondent No. 2 for making over all deficit occurred in the corpus fund. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of High Court in which a challenge was made to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of payment of Rs. 3.38 crores to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 also sought direction that deficit should be made good by respondent No. 2 by recovering excess payment made to 131 employees. During the pendency of the writ appeals, the respondents entered into an agreement on 15.10.2007 under which respondent No. 1 agreed to surrender the Master Policy containing the pensionary claims and respondent No. 2 agreed to pay the pension to 131 employees, who were already getting pension and to return the remaining amount towards corpus containing 10% employer's share to respondent No. 1 with interest after retaining the requisite amount for payment of pension to aforesaid 131 employees. 4. The above agreement was. produced before the Division Bench while taking note of the aforesaid agreement in the writ appeal. The Division Bench vide order dated 24.2.2008 passed in W.A. No. 333/2007 recorded statement of officer of respondent No. 1 as under:-- Mr. 4. The above agreement was. produced before the Division Bench while taking note of the aforesaid agreement in the writ appeal. The Division Bench vide order dated 24.2.2008 passed in W.A. No. 333/2007 recorded statement of officer of respondent No. 1 as under:-- Mr. Vidhan has brought to our notice that during the pendency of the writ appeal, an agreement has been entered between Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistics Corporation (for short 'the Corporation") and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short TIC) on 15th October, 2007 under which the LIC has agreed to pay pension to 131 retired employees of the Corporation as per the list attached to the agreement as per Annexure 'A' under the terms of Defined Contribution as per balance available in their individual accounts and to refund the corpus to the Corporation. Mr. Vidhan further submitted that on receiving the corpus from the LIC, the Corporation will refund the employer's with interest as received from the LIC to the employees other than the 131 employees to whom the LIC will continue to pay pension. 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench the respondent No. 1 surrendered the Master Policy on 17.5.2008 and by letter dated 31.5.2008 made a demand to the respondent No. 2 to return the remaining amount so that the payment can be made to the remaining employees except 131 employees who were entitled to receive the pension. The respondent No. 2 thereupon forwarded a cheque of Rs. 11,30,78,166/- to respondent No. 1 towards 10% of the employer's share which was transferred to respondent No. 2 in the year 1997. The aforesaid amount was duly withdrawn by respondent No. 1 on 9.6.2008 from the account of the respondent No. 2. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that only 68% of the employer's share was returned by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 and remaining 32% of the amount of employer's share has been withheld. Alongwith the writ petition a chart (Annexure-P-10) has been filed furnishing the details of the amount. The petitioners thereupon contacted the respondent No. 1 seeking payment of balance amount of 32%. However, remaining 32% of the amount of employer's contribution was not paid. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner have approached this Court. 7. Alongwith the writ petition a chart (Annexure-P-10) has been filed furnishing the details of the amount. The petitioners thereupon contacted the respondent No. 1 seeking payment of balance amount of 32%. However, remaining 32% of the amount of employer's contribution was not paid. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner have approached this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the agreement dated 15.10.2007 the respondent No. 2 has no authority in law to retain the remaining 32% of the amount of employer's share of contribution which is due and payable to the members of the petitioner No. 1 association. In view of the agreement and order passed by Division Bench dated 22.4.2008 the respondent No. 2 is bound to remit the amount of 32% of the employer's share. The members of the petitioner-association who have retired long back are made to suffer and are deprived of their legitimate claims. 8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the stand take by the petitioners and has submitted that amount of 68% due on account of employer's contribution has been paid by the respondent No. 2 to it and it is for the respondent No. 2 to honour the agreement and order which has been passed by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 was liable to make payment of Rs. 16,58,63,849.49 to respondent No. 1, however, only an amount of Rs. 11,30,78,166/- has been paid. It is also urged that under clause 10 of the Policy the benefits under the policy are personal. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 1-Corporation and the Trustees had opted for the Defined Benefit Scheme as the benefits payable were defined by the employer and the contributions were to be remitted as per the quotations and actuarial valuation done by the L.I.C. every year. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 1-Corporation and the Trustees had opted for the Defined Benefit Scheme as the benefits payable were defined by the employer and the contributions were to be remitted as per the quotations and actuarial valuation done by the L.I.C. every year. It is also submitted that premium received was maintained by the L.I.C. as pooled fund and 131 annuities were purchased on the basis of Pension Payment Order in which mere is no reference to Provident Fund Contribution of individual employee and since the respondent No. 1-Corporation was unable to pay premium in respect of Defined Benefit Scheme as per actuarial valuation the agreement was entered into between the respondents under which the respondent No. 1-Corporation surrendered the policy and an amount of Rs. 11,30,78,166/- was paid to the respondent No. 1-Corporation towards full and final payment of outstanding to the credit of Pooled Superannuation Fund maintained with the L.I.C. It is also submitted that L.I.C. of India does not have the record of individual eligible amount of employer and it does not know as to why the Corporation as not released 32% amount due on account of employer's contribution amount. It is also pointed out that the corpus required to be debited to purchase the retiral benefit as desired by the respondent No. 1-Corporation was greater than that required in previous years and on the basis of subsequent actuarial valuation the respondent No. 1 refused to pay premium quoted by the L.I.C. and ordered stoppage of pension to 131 pensioners. Thereafter, the Deed of Variation was required to be executed to bring the documents in tune with the scheme. It is also urged that L.I.C. has refunded the entire amount with interest without any exit load to the respondent No. 1-Corporation except the amount required for payment of pension to 131 pensioners and the pension is being paid by it to 131 employees as per the Defined Benefit Scheme opted by the Corporation. Lastly, it is submitted that balance outstanding amount has been refunded to respondent No. 1 and the L.I.C. is not under an obligation to make any payment. 10. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Lastly, it is submitted that balance outstanding amount has been refunded to respondent No. 1 and the L.I.C. is not under an obligation to make any payment. 10. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. At the outset it may be clarified that dispute in the instant writ petition is confined only to the quantum of liability of respondent No. 2 to release the amount of 10% of employer's share alongwith interest in respect of 1237 employees of respondent No. 1-Corporation excluding 131 employees. Admittedly, a Master Policy dated 15.3.2007 was issued by the respondent No. 2. Schedule II of Policy deals with premium. Clause 1 thereof provides that respondent No. 1 shall pay the Corporation in respect of each member an annual premium which shall be due on the first day of April every year. Schedule III of the policy deals with benefits under the policy, which provides for payment of pension to an employee on his retirement. Schedule III further provides that amount of pension shall depend upon the amount standing to the credit of the member in running account, the age of person and type of pension shall be determined on the basis of immediate annuity rates. 11. A careful scrutiny of the return as well as additional return filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 would reveal that it is not the stand of the respondent No. 2 that amount on account of 10% employer's share in respect of remaining employees excluding 131 employees was not paid by respondent No. 1. Thus, the fact that amount on account of 10% employer's share in respect of remaining employees was paid is not in dispute which is also evident form clauses 2 & 4 of the agreement dated 15.10.2007, under which respondent No. 2 has agreed to refund the aforesaid amount. 12. It is pertinent to note that respondent No. 2 has taken a stand at the commencement of policy rate of interest was 12% per annum, which fell down to 4.5% w.e.f. 1.11.2003 and the annuity rates declared by the L.I.C. depend on the yield of investment. It is further stated in paragraph 12 of the return that under the policy no employee wise contribution is required to be maintained. It is further stated in paragraph 12 of the return that under the policy no employee wise contribution is required to be maintained. In paragraph 13 of the return it is averred mat corpus required to be debited to purchase the retirement benefit was greater than that required in previous year and on subsequent actuarial valuation the respondent No. 1 refused to pay premium quoted by the respondent No. 2 and ordered stoppage of pension to 131 pensioners. This fact is also evident from communication dated 23.5.2002 sent by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in which it was admitted that by respondent No. 1 that fund is insufficient to cover the liabilities in respect of accrued benefits and therefore, scheme may be converted into Defined Contribution Scheme w.e.f. 1.4.1996. However, despite the aforesaid stand and the correspondence between the respondents No. 1 & 2, the respondent No. 2 with it's eyes wide open entered into an agreement dated 15.10.2007. Clauses 2 & 4 of the agreement read as under:-- 2. That, the Life Insurance Corporation of India will pay the pension to 131 retired employees of the Warehousing Corporation, the list of which is attached herewith as Annexure-A under the terms of Defined Contribution, as per balance available in their individual accounts and as per Court Order dated 8.4.2004 in W.P. No. 4318/2002 and other connecting petitions passed by learned Single Judge and the amount requisite for payment of such pension to 131 employees on Defined Contribution basis shall be retained and the remaining amount available in annuities shall be refunded to the M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation alongwith interest without any exit load. 4. That, on refund of the corpus as aforesaid, the Life Insurance Corporation of India shall not be responsible to pay any pension to any of its employees except 131 employees as mentioned in Schedule A and the Master Policy referred above shall terminate for all practical and legal purpose. LIC will refund the entire corpus of rest of the employees alongwith interest to MPWLC without any exit load. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the agreement dated 15.10.2007 was subject to the approval of the High Court. LIC will refund the entire corpus of rest of the employees alongwith interest to MPWLC without any exit load. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the agreement dated 15.10.2007 was subject to the approval of the High Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition W.P. No. 4318/2002 in paragraph 23 has held that right accrued to 131 pensioners cannot be frustrated or taken away by any such agreement. However, the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order has no impact on the controversy involved in the instant writ petition as admittedly acting under the aforesaid agreement, the respondent No. 2 has refunded an amount of Rs. 11,30,78,166/- to respondent No. 1 towards 10% employer's contribution in respect of remaining 1237 employees, whereas as per the version of respondent No. 1 the aforesaid amount comes to Rs. 16,58,63,849.49. Thus, the dispute is essentially with regard to quantum of amount payable to the respondent No. 1 towards 10% employer's contribution in respect of remaining 1237 employees. 14. It is well settled in law that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of Cost Accountant. [See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others Vs. Mohd. Yasin, (1983) 3 SCC 229 , It is equally well settled legal position that High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 can refer the technical aspects of the matter for investigation and opinion to the expert body or person. [See: A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 718 , Similarly in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India, (2012) 2 SCC 275 it has been held that the technical matters need to be determined by the expert bodies possessing technical know how and the Court can direct the technical bodies to consider and decide the matter. 15. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 has taken specific stand that under the agreement the respondent No. 2 was liable to make payment of Rs. 16,58,63,849.49 to respondent No. 1 in respect of remaining 1237 employees on account of 10% employer's share, whereas the stand of the respondent No. 2 is that a sum of Rs. 15. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 has taken specific stand that under the agreement the respondent No. 2 was liable to make payment of Rs. 16,58,63,849.49 to respondent No. 1 in respect of remaining 1237 employees on account of 10% employer's share, whereas the stand of the respondent No. 2 is that a sum of Rs. 11,30,78,166/- has been paid to respondent No. 1 towards full and final payment of balance outstanding amount towards 10% employer's share in respect of remaining 1237 employees. However, the respondent No. 2 has not furnished the details of the amount of 10% employer's share in respect of remaining 1237 employees and has also not disclosed the amount sufficient to make payment of pension to 131 employees. 16. From the minutes of meeting, which took place between the officers of the respondents No. 1 & 2 dated 14.2.2013, it appears that respondents were of the opinion that 131 pensioners were disproportionately benefited by the order of learned Single Judge. It is also not in dispute that the rate of interest had gone down over the period of time and there was depletion in the corpus amount under the policy. The amount paid by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 towards 10% of employer's share in respect of 1237 employees also needs to be ascertained. However, all the aforesaid aspects cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts of the case I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 to appoint one qualified Chartered Account each who shall after examining the entire aspect of the matter shall determine the amount, if any, payable to the respondent No. 1 in respect of remaining 1237 employees towards 10% employer's contribution. In case, there is difference of opinion between the reports of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Accountants appointed by the respondents would be at liberty to nominate third qualified Chartered Accountant whose decision in the matter shall be final. After aforesaid exercise is carried out suitable action as per the recommendations of Chartered Accountants shall be taken by the parties. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.