Judgment : K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Two review petitions, filed against the common judgment in W.A.Nos.1728 of 2010 and 2027 of 2010 dated 23.08.2013. The appeals were filed by the review petitioner herein and the State, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.2463 of 2002 dated 09.03.2010; filed by the party respondents herein. The petitioners in the writ petition, twelve in number, were superannuated employees of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation [hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"]. The grievance of the pensioners/ writ petitioners were with respect to the computation of their pension in accordance with the Kerala Warehousing Corporation Employees (Pension and Other Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1998. 2. The grievance raised was that, contrary to the Regulations, the writ petitioners were paid pension only at the pre-revised pay and not on the basis of the emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement. The learned Single Judge found that going by the Regulations, which are statutory in character, pension has to be calculated on the basis of the average emoluments, the employees were drawing as on the date of retirement. The funds constituted for the pension having been eroded and not being sufficient to satisfy such liability, the learned Single Judge found that the Government has a liability and responsibility to facilitate administration of the fund to the best interest of the employee. The Government was, hence, directed to consider the situation and find out a solution to mitigate hardship of the employees as also the difficulties faced in administration of the fund. 3. Both the Corporation and the Government were in appeal, the Corporation from the order directing grant of pension on the basis of the average emoluments as on the date of retirement; and the State against the finding of the liability of the State and the direction to step in, to alleviate the difficulty in administration of the pension fund. 4. The appeal of the State was allowed and the appeal of the Corporation was dismissed. This Court found that the State Government had agreed to the constitution of the Pension Fund, as per the Regulations, without any financial commitment on the part of the Government. The fund was to be constituted from the contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund and other resources that are available to the Corporation. This Court found that the State Government had agreed to the constitution of the Pension Fund, as per the Regulations, without any financial commitment on the part of the Government. The fund was to be constituted from the contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund and other resources that are available to the Corporation. It was specifically stated in the approval of the Pension Scheme that there would be no funding support from the State Government. It is also to be noticed that the onetime contribution of Rs.21,00,000/-[Rupees twenty one lakhs] as stipulated in Regulation 3 of the Scheme having been paid up, no further liability could be cast on the State Government to step in and pump in more funds to enable payment of pension to the retired employees. The administration of the fund was the sole responsibility of the Trustee Committee and on the above reasoning, this Court vacated the directions issued by the learned Single Judge against the State Government. No arguments are addressed with respect to the said finding and the review in that appeal, has been filed only since, both the Writ Appeals were dismissed by a common judgment. We do not find any reason to review the judgment insofar as the Writ Appeal of the State having been allowed. 5. With respect to the appeal of the Corporation, this Court, in the judgment sought to be reviewed, agreed with the views of the learned Single Judge, insofar as finding the pensioners to be entitled to payment of pension computed on the basis of the average emoluments last drawn, as on the date of their retirement. The said finding is sought to be reviewed, on the ground that this Court had failed to take notice of the specific contention raised insofar as fixing the minimum and maximum pension at the pre-revised rate, which the Trustee Committee was empowered to do, as per the Regulations. It is also forcefully urged that if pension at the revised scales are allowed to the employees, that would not be in the best interest of the employees; retired or continuing in employment, since the fund would have to be liquidated in no time. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents/writ petitioners would contend that, no sustainable ground for review is urged in the review petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents/writ petitioners would contend that, no sustainable ground for review is urged in the review petition. It is contended that the point now urged was never argued before the Court, either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. The learned counsel would specifically emphasise the computation of pension, as stipulated in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which mandate that the pension shall be calculated based on the qualifying service and emoluments at the time of retirement. If the pre-revised pay is taken into account for computation of retirement benefits, then the stipulation of calculation on the basis of emoluments at the time of retirement would become otiose, is the contention. Relying on the Government Order bearing No.GO (MS).356/99/AD dated 27.12.1999, the learned counsel would contend that the stipulation being only that the minimum basic pension shall be at Rs.375/- per month and the maximum pension limited to Rs.3,650/- per month, the computation of basic pension has to be made on the emoluments at the time of retirement, subject, however, to limitation of maximum payable pension not exceeding Rs.3,650/-. 7. We have anxiously considered the contentions raised on behalf of both parties. On the basis of the submissions, we were persuaded to review the judgment insofar as W.A.No.2027 of 2010 and, hence, the said appeal itself was heard on merits. 8. It cannot be said that the contention now urged in R.P.No. 1017 of 2013 was never raised before this Court in W.A.No.2027 of 2010. This Court has specifically in paragraph 4, noticed the contention of the Corporation, that the Pensionary Regulations are not statutory in character and, hence, the writ petitioners would not be entitled for computation of pension on the basis of pay revision. This Court while affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Regulations are statutory in character, did not look into the specific contention that the pension cannot be computed on the basis of the pay revision. A brief perusal of the memorandum of Writ Appeal would also indicate that the specific stand of the Corporation was that sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations empowered the Committee of Trustees to take appropriate action, so as to save the fund from self-liquidation, if at any future point of time the fund could not pay pension at the sanctioned rates. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation specifically relies on sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which conferred the authority on the Board to fix the minimum and maximum amount of pension with the approval of the Government, coupled with the Government Order dated 27.12.1999 which fix the minimum and maximum limit of pension at Rs.375/- and Rs.3,650/-. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that such computation of basic pension has to be on the pre-revised scales, since the Government Order specifically mentions the minimum and maximum limit to be as "pre-revised" in brackets. 10. We cannot countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the pensioners that a hamonious construction, would commend fixing the pension on the basis of the emoluments at the time of retirement on the revised scale, but however within the limits of Rs.375/- to Rs.3,650/- per month. The limits for basic pension as proposed by the Board and approved by the Government is not restricted to the stipulated amounts alone. Such computation of the limit has to be within the prescribed monetary limit and has also to be on the basis of the pre-revised scale. 11. The Corporation and the Committee of Trustees, on the basis of the actuarial assessment of the working of the fund, could have fixed a minimum and maximum amount, which does not take into account any revision of pay; in the best interest of the employees as also with the intention of working the pension fund without liquidation. The pension was hence, decided to be computed on the basis of the pre-revised scale as of 1999, the date of the Government Order. The Corporation, though conscious of the revision of pay brought in before the proposal and the approval by the Government, did not think it fit to compute the basic pension on the basis of such revised pay. 12. It is to be specifically noticed that the claim of the pensioners, going by the writ petition, is that they should be paid the pension on the basis of the computation of their emoluments as per the revision effected by G.O.(P).No.300/98/Fin. dated 25/11/1998 with effect from 01.03.1997. The petitioners in the writ petition were all retired at some time between 1997 and 2000. dated 25/11/1998 with effect from 01.03.1997. The petitioners in the writ petition were all retired at some time between 1997 and 2000. The pension fund constituted, is on the basis of the contributions to the Contributory Provident Fund and is said to be on the basis of the actuarial computation. Hence, it cannot be ignored that the contribution made by the pensioners; on the basis of the revision of pay is minimal, since they had retired on various dates between 1997 and 2000, immediately after the revision of pay came into force. 13. This Court while deciding W.A.No.2027 of 2010 had not noticed the aforementioned facts available from the records of the Writ Appeal and definitely there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is also to be noticed that the specific contention raised in the Writ Appeal was based on sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, which empowered the Committee of Trustees to take appropriate action to save the fund from self-liquidation. We cannot also ignore the submission made by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the fund, as it is presently constituted, would not withstand the computation of basic pension at the revised rates and any computation so directed would result in the liquidation of the fund itself. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, we are persuaded to review the judgment in W.A.No.2027 of 2010 and direct that the computation of pension can be only at the pre-revised rate, with the minimum and maximum being Rs.375/- and Rs.3,650/- per month as indicated in Exhibit P13; relied on by the writ petitioners. In the result, R.P.No.166 of 2014 is dismissed. R.P.No.1017 of 2013 would stand allowed. The judgment in W.A.No.2027 of 2010 dated 23.08.2013 is reviewed and the said appeal would stand allowed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.